Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Olympics 2012

Andrew Love: If she will make a statement on progress on infrastructure in the Thames gateway in respect of London's bid for the 2012 Olympics.

Tessa Jowell: A master plan prepared earlier this year by the London Development Agency set out plans for the lower Lea valley. They are designed to accommodate staging the Olympics in 2012. Outline planning permission is being sought for those proposals.

Andrew Love: May I, on behalf of the House, add to the congratulations to the bid team on making the shortlist? May we also thank Barbara Cassani for her leadership and congratulate Lord Coe on taking on that mantle for the future?
	The International Olympic Committee's report expressed concern about transport infrastructure. I know that the Government are about to invest £600 million in the Thames gateway; indeed, we were told earlier this week that they have earmarked £17 billion for transport infrastructure in future years. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that she will be working with her Ministers to ensure that the poor state of London's transport highlighted in the report will be dealt with?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, of course, there is close co-operation across Government on all aspects of the bid, including those that relate to transport for the Olympics. It is worth making the point that, by 2012, £17 billion will have been invested in London's transport. We will have the channel tunnel rail link during the Olympics, the dedicated link from King's Cross down to Stratford, a 45 per cent. increase in capacity on the Jubilee line and no fewer than 10 railway lines serving Stratford station, so we have a lot to be proud of in the transport infrastructure that we will be in a position to offer visitors to London when they come to the Olympics in 2012.
	One final point, Mr. Speaker. I know that my hon. Friend has been very concerned to ensure that the regeneration effects benefit his constituents. He will therefore welcome the investment that the lower Lea valley regeneration intends to make in a retail park, for the benefit of jobs in his constituency.

Nick Hawkins: In echoing what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said in paying tribute to Barbara Cassani and her work with Lord Coe, does the Secretary of State recognise that while all Members on both sides of the House want the Olympic bid to succeed, we want to see progress with the City of London in terms of the business support that it can give to the infrastructure? Does she recognise that that has perhaps not been given sufficient priority? Does she also recognise that there is concern among people in east London that there is a shortage of facilities, particularly in terms of swimming—a sport in which I have a personal interest, as she is aware? Does she acknowledge that that too can helpfully be addressed?

Mr. Speaker: Order. No one is going to win any Olympic prizes for the length of their questions.

Tessa Jowell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I would obviously like to join in what Members on both sides of the House want, which is to congratulate and thank Barbara Cassani, who is still very much part of the bid team, but also to welcome Seb Coe's leadership. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: swimming facilities will be an important benefit of the bid, and the aquatic centre will be one of the first Olympic facilities to be developed. On business support, I met the CBI just two weeks ago. He is absolutely right that London's businesses want to support the bid and they have already made a handsome contribution to the cost of it. That is to be welcomed.

Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend knows that many facilities for the Olympic games are located in my constituency of West Ham, where there is enormous support for the bid. The legacy use of those sports facilities, if they are built, is pretty crucial, particularly that of the 80,000-seater Olympic stadium. What discussions has she been able to have with the football clubs of London that could use it, such as West Ham, Tottenham and perhaps, given its ambitious plans, Chelsea?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that some preliminary discussions have been held with a number of football clubs that might take on the responsibility for and the tenancy of the main Olympic stadium, but I also want to underline the welcome that his constituents give to the prospect of the Olympics. For this purpose, the world divides into those who want to win and those who want to whinge. His constituents want to win, and if we work together, pull together and realise the possibilities that the Olympics can bring to London we will win, but too many people are whingeing on the sidelines. They will damage our bid.

Julie Kirkbride: We on the Conservative Benches would like to begin by offering a warm welcome to Lord Coe as chairman of the 2012 bid. We also want to pay tribute to Mrs. Cassani for putting together an excellent technical bid and an excellent team. But we wonder why, given Lord Coe's past as a British Olympian, the fact that he is well known in the international sporting arena, and that he is a politician, he was not the first choice. However, he now has a very important job to do. Notwithstanding the first response that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), will she come to the Dispatch Box, bearing in mind the International Olympic Committee's criticisms of our transport arrangements, and guarantee that the east London line will be constructed in time for the Olympics, and that the upgrade of the Jubilee line will take place in time, too?

Tessa Jowell: On the hon. Lady's question about the east London line, feasibility studies are currently under way, both by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London. The outcome of those studies will be considered as part of the spending round, so there will be no decision on funding for the east London line until the summer. We have always made it absolutely clear that the east London line would greatly enhance the hosting of the Olympics, but it is not essential to a first-class transport plan for the Olympics.
	From memory, although I stand to be corrected, Lord Coe did not submit his name first time around. What we have, however, is Barbara Cassani's legacy, which was to set up the team, and now Lord Coe, who we hope will take us past the winning line in July next year.

Julie Kirkbride: I am sure that the 2012 bid team will have noted what the Secretary of State says about transport links, but there were other criticisms in the IOC report that she might also wish to address. For example, on Government support, we came eighth out of nine among the bidding cities, and on public support, we came ninth out of nine. The Secretary of State might like to consider whether she should stop whingeing about the whingers, and the Minister for Sport and Tourism should stop telling Londoners that they need to be disciplined about their attitude to the British Olympic bid and start winning the hearts and minds of the British public for a London bid for 2012.

Tessa Jowell: Of course, the 2012 bid team and all those who have a role to play, including Members on both sides of the House, will examine carefully what the International Olympic Committee said about the London bid. It is a constructive intervention, not one that should deter us. It is also worth recording that London came from nowhere and is at the moment standing third. There is little distance between the first three cities. In fact, we scored better than Paris on environmental conditions, we are equal with Paris on accommodation, finance and Government support, and we are better than Madrid on safety and security. There is an awful lot going for the London bid, and I hope that at every opportunity she will talk it up, not talk it down.

Andrew MacKinlay: I invite my right hon. Friend to look at the Order Paper, on which she will see that the question relates to the Thames gateway and infrastructure, and I invite her to consider that the boundaries of Greater London are wholly artificial and ridiculous, and that they relate to 1963. The Thames gateway includes Thurrock, where there is room to breathe and people are enthusiastic about the Olympic bid. Not only do we want a slice of the action but it would be in her interest, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), if she were to look eastwards rather than just to the few miles round the centre.

Tessa Jowell: I take seriously my hon. Friend's advocacy for Thurrock. [Interruption.] Exactly. I greatly look forward to visiting it next month.

Archaeology

Tim Loughton: What assessment she has made of the all-party archaeology group's report on the state of archaeology in the United Kingdom.

Estelle Morris: The Government welcome the all-party archaeology group's report. Its recommendations will form a useful contribution to the ongoing review of heritage protection.

Tim Loughton: I welcome the Minister's comments, but her predecessor undertook to give a formal response to the report, and it has been out since January 2003. May I bring to her attention two points in it? First, the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel, which was set up in 2000, has been successful in its recommendations. The trouble is that only three of those 16 recommendations have so far been put into practice, and she is now recommending winding it up. Will she reconsider that? On the portable antiquities scheme, will she agree to accept an all-party delegation of those of us who are concerned that the Government should take the scheme fully under their wing after the funding ends in 2006? It has been so successful, as I saw in my area in Sussex last Friday, that it is in danger of being swamped as a result, and the Government need to take it under their wing and fund it properly after 2006.

Estelle Morris: I take the point about the report having been published in January last year. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Media and Heritage met the all-party group last October—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—and I will pass the hon. Gentleman's comments to him.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for what the portable antiquities scheme has achieved, but all I can say now is that the funding is secure for another one or two years. Obviously we cannot make an announcement until we have the results of our spending review bid, but I hope very much that the Government will be able to bear the costs. The Department has put in £1.5 million so far. I shall say no more for the moment, but I will probably report in the autumn.
	I shall shortly meet the chairman of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel. I want to discuss with him what will happen following representations he has made to me. Perhaps I shall have further news after that meeting.

Tam Dalyell: Are the Government giving a friendly response to recommendation 7 on the framework and funding of the portable antiquities scheme?

Estelle Morris: I personally am giving it an exceptionally friendly response. The problem is persuading other Ministers to give a more friendly response to it than to other bids.
	The £1.5 million invested by the Department is not a huge amount, but it has achieved a great deal. There were 87,000 finds last year, and 20,000 people are now taking part in the activity, of whom 4,000 are children. I think it would be a shame if the scheme did not continue. Perhaps my words will fall on favourable ears.
	All I can say now is that the bid is there and the intention is to continue the funding. It would be silly to say more than I have dared to say thus far without knowing exactly what will happen to our settlement in the next spending review. More risk than that I am not about to take.

National Lottery

Hugo Swire: How much is unallocated in the national lottery distribution fund.

Estelle Morris: The NLDF holds about £2.65 billion, of which less than 4 per cent. is unallocated. Forward commitments made by lottery distributors total £3.6 billion, making the fund 32 per cent. over-committed.

Hugo Swire: That is a welcome move in the right direction, but it still fails to meet the figures planned by the Government as long ago as 2002. As a matter of principle, however, is it not iniquitous that so much money can still be held centrally when up and down the country there are good causes, some of them time-limited? In my constituency the Weavers' Tales celebrate 250 years of carpet-making in Axminster, while the Norman Lockyer observatory in Sidmouth is crying out for money to improve access. Everywhere in the country are good causes for which local people want funds that currently sit invested and centrally held. Can the Secretary of State not give the Heritage Lottery Fund and other distribution bodies clearer guidelines so that the money can be given back to those from whom it originally came?

Estelle Morris: The Secretary of State has done exactly that. All lottery distributors receive guidance on not holding back too much in reserve. We should not give the impression that money that is waiting to be spent sits in the coffers owing to inefficiency. This is about managing cash flow as much as anything else. As I said in my answer, the fund is 32 per cent. over-committed. In reducing the reserves, we want to ensure that we spend what we can reasonably spend this year, and not make worthwhile projects throughout the country wait until next year or the year after.
	The National Audit Office is currently considering what balance it is appropriate for distributors to hold. I think that its report, which will appear in the next few months, will give us extra ammunition in making sure that the distributors do not retain funds centrally. I should put on record, however, that they are held by the distributors and not by Government.

Dave Watts: Can the Minister assure me that any surplus funds will be spent on the arts—on sport rather than the arts, and will not be wasted on schemes for the London lobbies?

Estelle Morris: I much preferred my hon. Friend's initial comment; indeed, perhaps I should ask you to introduce a new rule, Mr. Speaker, stating "no corrections allowed". At the moment, the distributors themselves keep the money, and the real issue is where the interest on funds that are held is spent. There is a formula for the giving of lottery money to distributors, and currently there is almost an incentive for them to hold on to the reserves, given that they also keep the interest. As my hon. Friend will know from the relevant document, we intend to ensure that that interest is shared equally among all the funds. If I had time, I would list the many benefits of giving such money to the arts—not just for luvvies, but for people throughout the country in all communities, rural and urban. Indeed, without arts funding this country would be a much poorer place.

David Tredinnick: The Minister will be aware that in the east midlands, and in Leicestershire in particular, there is concern that less than the average number of bids from the region are successful. Why are we discriminated against in this way?

Estelle Morris: It is impossible to discriminate in terms of bids because the Government do not control the number of bids coming in, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. On outcomes, the situation in the east midlands may well resemble that in my own constituency, in that it does not get what one might call its fair share of lottery fund money. The Government, together with the lottery distributors, have already embarked on the fair share initiative, through which we will work very carefully with those areas that are not receiving a fair amount of money.
	I should point out that if the hon. Gentleman feels that applications from his area are not forthcoming, the lottery distributors would be more than happy to meet him, and perhaps to work jointly with his constituency and the neighbouring constituencies to encourage grass-roots organisations to make bids. If they do not make the bids, they cannot get the money. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a very important point, and I very much hope that he will respond to that invitation. Lottery distributors are more than willing to work with any Member of this House to increase the number of bids from under-represented constituencies.

Alistair Burt: Why is the bureaucracy associated with efforts to get money from the lottery so difficult to deal with? Does the Minister agree with the criticism offered by my local schools and Bedfordshire county council, which said that it has been exceptionally difficult to get lottery distribution money for new sports facilities from the New Opportunities Fund? Indeed, when the fund was set up in 2001, it was allocated a budget of £500 million, but until last month only £10.4 million had actually been spent.

Estelle Morris: We do need to reduce bureaucracy; indeed, there is nothing more frustrating than people being put off making bids because they feel that the process will prove too bureaucratic. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism tells me that the programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers is now ahead of schedule. However, there have been bureaucratic problems, and I hope that they have been sorted out. In respect of the awards for all initiative, for example, the waiting time from application to making the grant has been significantly reduced. All lottery distributors are aware of the problems associated with too much form filling and lengthy waiting times for the making of decisions. I take seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and we need constantly to keep our eye on the situation, and to do all that we can to reduce form filling and bureaucracy.

Playing Fields

Andrew Robathan: What assessment she has made of the work of the playing fields monitoring group; and if she will make a statement on its monthly list of planning applications for building on playing fields.

Richard Caborn: Before I answer the question, Mr. Speaker, may I thank you and all Members of the House for agreeing to start the Westminster mile—hopefully, Roger Bannister will be involved—on 16 June from Abingdon Green? The BBC's Sport Relief is a very good charity, and I hope that many Members will participate in the event.
	The Government have convened a meeting of the national playing fields monitoring group on 27 May to assess the work of the group and to discuss its future role. The Government will continue to publish playing fields statistics annually rather than monthly, because annual statistics provide a comprehensive picture of our progress in protecting these important resources.

Andrew Robathan: The Government set up the monitoring group only four years ago to report monthly on planning applications for the development of playing fields, so when it meets on Wednesday, will the Minister explain why it has not met for nearly a year? When the Secretary of State said in a speech in March to sports colleges that
	"There is a great deal of misty-eyed sentimentalism about playing fields",
	and when she sneeringly spoke of
	"critics clinging to a world of jumpers for goalposts and small boys in the park",
	was she dismissing the value of healthy outdoor activity and the importance that most people attach to a large number of playing fields?

Richard Caborn: We have explained many times from the Dispatch Box that we will have a dialogue with the National Playing Fields Association. We will consider the need to look at indoor facilities, too. Change has been significant since we brought in new rules about playing fields and made Sport England a statutory consultee. Well over 90 per cent. of all the applications referred to it end up providing equal or better facilities. In 2001–02, there was £270 million of investment and 447 new facilities were provided, and the year after, nearly 500 new facilities were provided. Since 1995, Sport England has created more than 320 new sports pitches and improved over 520 facilities, and that is just Sport England—that does not include local authorities and many other organisations that are involved in playing fields.

Andy Reed: Mr. Speaker, I was most disappointed to hear that you would not be running the mile. I will be happy to help if you do, hopefully next year.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need much more rounded statistics and much more depth in our learning? When I was chair of East Midlands Sport, many applications that came to us led to improved facilities. We should have rejected, where possible, the 10 per cent. where there was no improvement. Can the monitoring group ensure that, where there is no improvement, the bids are rejected because we need to see more playing fields? Will he recognise that, where bids will lead to improvements, they should be supported because, in many cases, particularly in my constituency, we have seen vast improvements and greater participation, which is the key to all this?

Richard Caborn: I could not agree more. To that end, in July, we will be rolling out for the first time ever a facilities database. I have asked Sport England to come down before that starts in July and to present that to all Back Benchers. It will be available for about four or five hours on the day before we launch it, so that every hon. Member will be able to see what sports facilities are in their area.
	The database will be updated regularly. I hope that, by the end of this year, local authorities and others will be able to use it to ensure that they can see supply and demand in their area, a point that was referred to by my hon. Friend. For the first time, we will be able to make informed decisions about the type of investment that is going into sports facilities across the board.

Boris Johnson: The Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that there had been significant change in respect of playing fields since the Government came to power in 1997. That is certainly true. They came to power saying that they would halt the sale of school playing fields to arrest the decline of sport in schools, since when the number of applications to sell playing fields has gone up every year. Last year—this is the most relevant statistic—of the 807 successful applications, 440 led to the total extinction of those facilities. Given the threat to sport in schools, particularly contact sports, from litigation and all kinds of other matters, against which Ministers say not a peep, will the Minister now tell the House what measures he has in mind—apart from encouraging people to run down concrete roads, and apart from an annual meeting of the playing fields monitoring group—to arrest the sale of playing fields?

Richard Caborn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. May I now inform him why no one should vote Tory again if they support playing fields? The planning applications that were made when his Government were in power were to shut playing fields. The planning applications for investment of £500 million are to build new facilities—we have to have planning applications to build new facilities. The simple answer to his question is: do not vote Tory—they will shut your playing fields down.

Amateur Sports Clubs

Parmjit Dhanda: If she will make a statement on the take-up of rate relief support for amateur sports clubs.

Tessa Jowell: As of the end of April this year more than 1,100 local amateur sports clubs had registered with the community amateur sports club scheme. That scheme provides such clubs with an 80 per cent. relief on their non-domestic rates as part of a whole package of benefits intended to promote community and grass-roots sport. My hon. Friend will be aware that two clubs—a rugby club and a bowling club—in his constituency have opted to take advantage of the scheme.

Parmjit Dhanda: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer and I am pleased to hear about the 1,100 clubs, including no less august bodies than the Gloucester Old Boys rugby football club and the Gloucestershire Spar bowls club, that have taken advantage of the scheme. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a simple one-page form for rates relief, which has made a huge difference and encouraged more clubs to apply. I urge her to use that as an example of good practice, cutting bureaucracy across government.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend. We are beginning to make progress on take-up and I hope that Members throughout the House will urge their local sports clubs to register in this way because of the tangible benefits and money to be saved, which can then be reinvested and spent on grass-roots sport. That is the objective: to promote participation and to improve facilities for grass-roots sport. I am very glad that my hon. Friend has recognised the success of the scheme.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the scheme and pay tribute to the contribution that it is making, but does the right hon. Lady not agree with the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) and me that after the reduction and raiding of the sports part of the lottery funding, there is not the same amount of money coming into sport, particularly for rugby clubs, such as the York club at Clifton Moor. What more can the Secretary of State do to encourage clubs to invest when they have lost that source of funding?

Tessa Jowell: I do not accept the hon. Lady's assertion. Over three years, £1 billion is going into new sports facilities. That is a proud record, which outstrips anything that any Government have done in the past. Yes, every lottery distributor has faced a reduction in the level of lottery income, but the hon. Lady will have noticed, as I have, that the last quarter's figures reported by Camelot, showed an increase in lottery sales for the first time. That is good for good causes, good for sport and good for the sports clubs in the hon. Lady's constituency.

Jane Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rate relief scheme is excellent news for amateur clubs such as the Palmer park velo cycling club in my constituency? Does she also agree that, if the London Olympic bid is successful, we should look not only east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has suggested, but west to Reading where the Palmer park velodrome would be proud to host the world's finest cyclists?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that generous offer. She makes an important point—that the benefits stemming from the Olympic bid will not be for London alone, but will help sport across the country. The community amateur sports club scheme is one practical way of extending the benefit.

Licensing Act

Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement about the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003.

Richard Caborn: The timetable for full implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 is dependent on parliamentary approval of the draft guidance to local authorities, which was laid before Parliament on 23 March. If Parliament is content, we expect to complete the implementation of the Act around late summer 2005.

Desmond Swayne: What will the fees be for licences under the new regime? If the Minister cannot tell us the fee level now, when will he be able to tell us?

Richard Caborn: We are in discussion with the Local Government Association and others in the industry. I hope to be able to announce the fees in the not too distant future. We have already given an indication and I do not believe that it will prove to be far from the mark.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend is aware that several Labour Members are concerned that the new licensing law may not necessarily bring about a reduction in harmful alcohol consumption. Will he keep the new law under careful and close scrutiny with a view to reforming it yet again if it appears that it has brought about increased levels of harmful consumption rather than a reduction?

Richard Caborn: All those consulted broadly agree with the 2003 Act. There is a misunderstanding about the extension of the flexibility of licensing. The police have said clearly on every occasion that they believe that the flexibility will bring alcohol-related crime down. All the indications to date within the UK—including Scotland, where the instance of such crimes has fallen—are clear. We have run three experiments. Over the new year period in the capital at the millennium, for example, we found that crime came down by 6 per cent. as a result of the 36-hour opening. I repeat that all the experience so far suggests that greater flexibility will reduce crime.

Adrian Sanders: One side effect of the Act for the professional football clubs—the Government have a good record of support for association football—is that stewards have to be trained, and the cost that has been cited is £500 a steward, which is an enormous amount for small second or third division clubs. Is the Minister aware of the problem?

Richard Caborn: I am very aware of it. Several organisations representing the stewards have written to me, and I am seeking clarification from the Home Office. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pushing very hard and we will try to ensure that assurances given in the other place are adhered to.

Bill O'Brien: I welcome the Act, but some social and sporting clubs believe that the interpretation is such that their associates and visitors will not be able to participate in the social well-being of the club or purchase or partake of any beverages there. Is my right hon. Friend aware of that, and what does he intend to do about it?

Richard Caborn: Again, I am very aware of it, and I must have signed off something like three dozen letters this weekend on what is clearly a misinterpretation by the English Golf Union concerning membership of golf clubs. In fact, there is very little variation from the previous Act. It is basically status quo for the over-18s, although there is a tightening for under-18s in clubs. There should be no change for golf clubs or indeed any other sports clubs.

Malcolm Moss: It is all very well the Minister saying that the problem seems to have gone away. The English Golf Union wrote to us only today saying that it is still not happy with his and his civil servants' so-called interpretation about why, under the guidance and under the Act as written, many golfers who are neither members of other qualifying clubs nor guests in the strict definition of that term will not be able to buy a drink on the 19th hole.

Richard Caborn: The English Golf Union has not got back to me personally on that. Nothing has crossed my desk—if it does, I will hope to answer the point more fully. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the position remains the same as under the previous Act, when the 19th hole was quite well watered—and I expect that it will continue to be quite well watered in the future.

Football

John Mann: What discussions she has had on consumer and worker involvement in the future of the football industry.

Richard Caborn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met representatives from a number of organisations involved in football to discuss a range of issues, including, in broad terms, the recommendations of the all-party group's report on English football and its finances and the Independent Football Commission's annual report 2003. We will release the outcome of those discussions when we respond to both reports.

John Mann: Having left Bradford City at the knacker's yard, Geoffrey Richmond is now advising his son and others who are currently selling off the assets of Leeds United football club, and doubtless intending again to pay themselves handsome consultancy fees in the process. We have also seen Leicester City failing to pay 90p in the pound on its tax liability, yet still affording to go to La Manga for a week last season. The next time a football club goes into administration, will the Government take action to ensure that the taxpayer gets proper value for money by taking a slice of the club and handing it over to the supporters, allowing them to have some ownership of their team?

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend makes his points with some passion. It was this Government who set up Supporters Direct, which has given sound information to many fans and seeks good governance for football. Many of us believe that football is very important for our communities, so we will continue to work with Supporters Direct. When a club goes into administration, that is dealt with by the authorities, and it is for them to act as they see fit.

Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that another area of professional football that needs examining is the parasitic behaviour of agents? Whenever football transfers are carried out and salaries are creamed off, should not the sum taken out of the game and given to those parasites be made clear, so that supporters know exactly where the money is going?

Richard Caborn: The wake-up call for football was what happened with ITV Digital, and I believe that the nationwide league, with its chair, Mr. Brian Mawhinney—[Hon. Members: "Sir Brian!"] Thank you for that correction. Sir Brian is looking into the whole question of corporate governance, and has brought forward a number of actions that would bring about better governance. I note that the premiership is also considering such questions. The two reports that I referred to earlier bring into focus many of the points that hon. Members have raised, and we shall respond to them in due course.

Ian Lucas: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the current difficulties of Wrexham football club, where the post of chairman is vacant—I mentioned that in case it might interest him. He probably will not be aware, however, that this very evening, consumers, workers and supporters who are concerned about the position of the club are meeting to found an organisation called Wrexham First, to ensure that the future of the club lies within its community rather than in the hands of property developers. What are the Government doing to embed such organisations and clubs in their communities, rather than in the hands of those who seek to exploit football clubs for property motives, and for their own commercial ends?

Richard Caborn: As I have already said, we set up, or rather funded, the organisation Supporters Direct, and my very strong advice to Wrexham and those trying to rescue the club is to take counsel from Supporters Direct. I have no doubt that it will give them information that they will be able to work on to ensure that the club continues to play a major role in its community.

Stonehenge

Robert Key: What matters were discussed when the Minister for Media and Heritage met the head of UNESCO at Stonehenge on 17 May.

Estelle Morris: Mr. Matsuura, director general of UNESCO, requested to see Stonehenge during his informal visit to the United Kingdom last week. He had a tour of the Stonehenge world heritage site with officials of English Heritage and the National Trust. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Media and Heritage, as the Minister responsible for world heritage sites, joined him to visit the stone circle itself.

Robert Key: I am grateful for that information. All DCMS Ministers, whichever House they come from, are always welcome in my constituency, as is the director general of UNESCO. Can the Minister give an unequivocal commitment that, subject to planning conditions, the developments of the road in the world heritage site and the new visitors centre at Stonehenge are firmly in the Government's programme, that there will be no backsliding and no instructions from the Treasury, and that both will be completed?

Estelle Morris: I understand the hon. Gentleman's eagerness to ensure that firm commitments are made on this subject. Indeed, my officials tell me that we have got further with the current set of proposals than ever before. It is good news that the inspector's report was delivered a week ahead of schedule, which shows that in terms of time, we are still on target. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the developments are firmly in our spending plans for 2008, assuming that all planning applications and consents go accordingly.

Don Foster: I welcome the work that the Government are doing with UNESCO to support cultural heritage at Stonehenge and elsewhere, but when the Minister for Media and Heritage met people from UNESCO, did he take the opportunity to discuss ways in which we could do more, through UNESCO, to support cultural reconstruction in war-torn countries such as Iraq? Does the Minister therefore think that it would be vital to persuade the American Government to do what we have done recently—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with Stonehenge.

Football

Peter Pike: What steps she is taking to encourage and support professional football clubs to develop community links and involvement.

Richard Caborn: The Government are working with the Football Association, the Football Foundation and other partners to encourage professional football clubs to develop stronger community links with schemes such as football in the community and playing for success.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend has been to Turf Moor several times in the past 12 months, and I know that he has recently met directors and other representatives of Burnley football club; I believe that he is going to Turf Moor again soon. Does he not agree that the way forward for football clubs such as Burnley is to become community clubs, as they are anxious to do, and to form supporters trusts? Is it not that type of policy, rather than some of the others that we heard about earlier, that need the encouragement and support of the Government and local government if local football clubs are to succeed and survive into the future?

Richard Caborn: I could not agree more. Burnley is a fantastic football club, and has always played a role in the community, and I hope that the discussions to make it a strong community club again are successful. We bash professional football quite a lot, but statistics show that every year 40,000 pupils take part in Playing for Success. Many young people have gained from that experience, and nearly 1 million people have contact with football in the community. Professional footballers do a great deal of good work in their communities, and help the sport at grassroots in many ways, so we ought to commend the Football Association, the premier division and the Football League.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Redundant Churches

David Taylor: What the policy of the commissioners is in relation to redundant churches for which dioceses have found no suitable alternative uses.

Stuart Bell: Depending on the quality of the building, the commissioners have to decide between vesting the church in the Churches Conservation Trust for preservation or, as a last resort, demolishing it.

David Taylor: Since 1969, 10 per cent. of Anglican churches have been lost as places of worship. Over 300 have been demolished, of which one quarter were listed buildings. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Churches Conservation Trust should be given greater resources to protect threatened churches, especially in rural areas, where alternative uses are difficult to find? Their historic interest, architectural quality and landscape value, however, are often of the utmost importance to local communities. How will those communities benefit if a sale does take place?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. To date, 332 high-quality and important churches have been passed to the trust, and 366 have been demolished. A sum of £33 million has been raised since 1969 from the disposal of redundant churches, 80 per cent. of which has been put back into the dioceses for the use of the living church, to answer the point made by hon. Friend. We have passed £6.4 million to the Churches Conservation Trust, which we finance jointly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As my hon. Friend is asking for money, and as the Minister for the Arts is in the Chamber, let those who have ears hear his question.

John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that demolition is a counsel of despair and an admission of failure? Would he not further agree that in almost every imaginable scenario, with a degree of commitment and imagination it ought to be possible to refurbish an otherwise redundant church so that it can be made available to young people for amateur dramatics or other useful indoor activities?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He should understand that redundant churches are demolished only as a last resort, and we are keen that they should be used for community purposes. In fact, that is one of the options that we have developed positively in the interest of local communities, and we take into account other factors before any decision on demolition is made.

Gordon Prentice: What about the graveyards next to abandoned or redundant churches? I find it very dispiriting indeed to see neglected and overgrown graveyards when the Church is spending money on bishops' palaces. It does not, however, have the money to maintain graveyards.

Stuart Bell: Yes, of course, redundant churches sometimes have a cemetery next to them. The use of the word "graveyard" gives away the hon. Gentleman's age and experience. No one, of course, wants graves to fall into such a condition, and every effort is made to maintain those cemeteries in keeping with the Church's commitment and in keeping with the wishes of people whose lost ones are buried there. We will do our very best to take into account the point made by my hon. Friend.

Wayleaves

Hugo Swire: What study the commissioners have made of moneys owed to church properties resulting from wayleaves.

Stuart Bell: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that I am an expert on wayleaves. The Church Commissioners, however, have not made such a study.

Hugo Swire: Many dioceses have benefited enormously from wayleave payments from private utility companies. The diocese of Exeter has received £33,500 from BT and Western Power, Salisbury received £18,500, St. David's in Wales got £10,000 and Wells cathedral £4,500. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that those are all welcome moneys to hard-pressed ecclesiastical organisations. None the less, many ecclesiastical organisations remain unclear or uncertain as to their entitlement to wayleaves from public utility companies. Will he endeavour to spread the word to encourage them to go after wayleaves, to get the money that they are surely due?

Stuart Bell: A wayleave is a terminable right of way over or under land, for which a rent is normally paid. Typically it would be used for an electricity supply line or some such. I did tell the hon. Gentleman I was an expert on the subject. The rural portfolio of the commissioners generated net rents of £6.1 million and capital receipts of £10.1 million last year. On the question whether there should be a study, we do not have a problem with the collection of wayleaves, so no study is necessary. However, on the pertinent point of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall do my very best to ensure that all parishes understand the benefit that can come to them from wayleaves.

Parish Priests

Anne McIntosh: How many parish priests were recruited in the first quarter of (a) 1997 and (b) 2004.

Stuart Bell: The ministry division of the Archbishops Council does not record ordination figures on a quarterly basis. However, I can tell my hon. Friend—the hon. Lady has put so many questions to us over the past few years that she is now an hon. Friend—that in the whole of 1997 there were 262 newly ordained stipendiary deacons available for deployment, compared with 333 in 2003.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the large upturn in recruits to parish priesthood. I hope that he will join me in recording the valuable role and the pastoral care that rural vicars in particular provide, especially in constituencies such as the Vale of York which suffered so much during the foot and mouth crisis and subsequently. To what does the hon. Gentleman attribute the change? Does he believe that it will continue for the foreseeable future?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments and her support for clergy, especially in her constituency, where I know she spends some time and follows these matters carefully. Although the number now deployed is up, there is still likely to be a fall in the stipendiary clergy due to retirements. That fall is from 9,109 in 2003 to 8,691 in 2007. However, the Church's commitment and the commitment reflected in the newly ordained stipendiaries is a reflection of a commitment to faith in the 21st century.

Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that because the Church cannot afford ministers these days, fewer are coming into the ministry and many churches depend on retired ministers to meet their commitment to hold holy communion services on a Sunday?

Stuart Bell: I surmise that the fact that there is a difficulty in securing clergy for every church is due to the numbers of clergy, rather than to the stipend levels. The stipend levels for clergy of incumbent status in 1996–97 were £13,940 and £18,110 respectively. The figures now are £13,910 and £17,140, so the issue of money is taken care of, but the number required is still a problem.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Elections

Bob Spink: What representations the Commission has received regarding increasing participation in elections.

Peter Viggers: I am advised by the Electoral Commission that it has received numerous representations suggesting how participation in elections might be increased from a broad range of individuals and organisations.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he share my deep concern about the low turnout that we may experience in the European and local elections that are to be held on 10 June? Does he also share my concern about the potential for misuse, manipulation and corruption through postal balloting? What is the Electoral Commission going to do to protect us from manipulation of the postal ballots?

Peter Viggers: The expansion of postal voting since 2000 has allowed large numbers of voters to participate in elections at a time that is convenient for them, but my hon. Friend is right to focus on safeguards. In its publication "The Shape of Elections to Come", the Electoral Commission set out a range of measures that it believes should be implemented. Some of those measures have been introduced, but others have not, including the key proposal of individual registration of voters.

Harry Barnes: Increased participation in absolute terms, if not percentage terms, could be improved by electoral registration, which was the last point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. What is the Electoral Commission doing to increase registration to overcome the problems? Perhaps it could extend the provisions on rolling registration, which the Government introduced in 2000.

Peter Viggers: It is the view of the Electoral Commission that individual registration and ensuring that the register of voters is accurate are key to our democracy. As I said, the key point in the view of the Electoral Commission is individual registration, but the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and it will be noted.

David Heath: Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the seventh report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government, which investigated postal voting? The report, which would have been valuable to the House during its consideration of the recent Bill introducing all-postal pilots, makes some very good suggestions for countering fraud, including not only individual voter registration, which he mentioned, but increased resources for electoral officers, the establishment of a national database and dissemination to police forces of information on electoral offences. Can the Electoral Commission now work with the Select Committee to develop those recommendations and, it is to be hoped, to persuade the Government to introduce them?

Peter Viggers: Yes, the Electoral Commission believes that the Select Committee report is indeed valuable. As for the commission's own activities, following consultation with returning officers and political parties, it has recently released a draft code of conduct for candidates and party workers relating to postal voting. The code will be finalised later this year, following assessment of its use in the June elections.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Housing

Sydney Chapman: What the Church Commissioners' policy is for developing their housing estates.

Stuart Bell: All the Church Commissioners' investments are managed according to their statutory responsibility to ensure the best long-term return from a diversified investment portfolio.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the Second Church Estates Commissioner for that policy statement, but in relation to developing the estates, can he give some specific examples to show what part the commissioners are playing in improving the housing stock of this country by their policy?

Stuart Bell: Middleton house in Pimlico was upgraded and repaired in April 2003, and part of the Waterloo estate was completed in March this year. Work in Vauxhall began last autumn. Work differs between the estates, but, generally, the work that we carry out involves new or repaired roofs, windows, external repairs and improved communal areas. Some £19 million has been spent or committed to those three estates, and there is other ongoing work.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Boundary Review

Anthony Steen: If he will ask the commission to take steps to ensure that as part of the current boundary review process, all parliamentary constituencies are as near to 70,000 constituents as possible.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission does not have any responsibility for the process of reviewing parliamentary constituency boundaries. Section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides for the function to be transferred from the respective boundary commissions to the Electoral Commission, but this provision has not yet been implemented.

Anthony Steen: In view of the statutory duty of the boundary commission to ensure that all parliamentary constituencies are as near to 70,000 people as possible, can my hon. Friend explain how the playing field has become totally lopsided, and why 48 per cent. of parliamentary seats are either below 65,000 people or above 75,000? Is this a matter that he could take up with the boundary commission? Does he think that it is a coincidence that 43 per cent. of all the seats with fewer than 65,000 people are held by Labour incumbents?

Peter Viggers: The facts that my hon. Friend reports are interesting, but I have to say on behalf of the Electoral Commission that it currently has no responsibility in that area.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church Commissioners' Website

Robert Key: How many (a) hits and (b) unique visits per day were received by the Church Commissioners' website in April 2004.

Stuart Bell: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Church Commissioners' website is part of a Church of England family of sites, which currently receives some 3 million hits a month.

Robert Key: I look forward to hearing that that figure has jumped to 6 million, because the Church of England lags some way behind other churches in this respect. I hope not only that adequate resources will be provided centrally for the Church Commissioners' website, but that every encouragement will be given to all dioceses to use their websites much more effectively than at present.

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes an encouraging suggestion. I can tell him that the commissioners' website continues to develop. In 2003, guidance on the commissioners' residential lettings policy and available properties was added. I shall carry the hon. Gentleman's recommendation back to the Church, and I hope that he will see something exciting and interesting in the months to come.

Deepcut Barracks

Adam Ingram: Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the incident that took place in Iraq today. I am sure that they will understand that since the families of those involved are in the process of being informed, I cannot add any detail to the Foreign Secretary's statement in Brussels earlier today. However, I am sure that the House will join me in extending our condolences to the families of the two individuals who were killed and our best wishes for a speedy recovery to the person who was injured. British civilians are doing a valuable job in bringing stability to Iraq, and it is deeply shocking that they should be attacked in this way by the enemies of peace and democracy.
	In the armed forces personnel debate on 13 May, I informed the House that I intended shortly to make a statement in response to the report of the Surrey police into the four tragic deaths at Princess Royal barracks, which was published on 5 March this year. I am grateful for this opportunity to do so.
	It weighs heavily with me as to why we are here today. Between 1995 and 2002, four young people died tragically before their time. For the families of Privates Sean Benton, Cheryl James, Geoff Gray and James Collinson, these have been long and difficult years. I recognise that I cannot experience their grief, but I understand it and again pass my condolences on to them. The Army shares their sorrow. I also recognise that in some respects the families have not been as well treated as they should have been. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has apologised unreservedly for those failings, and I repeat these sentiments today.
	I am grateful to the chief constable of the Surrey police for his report, which made the clear recommendation that the Ministry of Defence should consider a broader investigation into first, whether the risks identified at Deepcut are replicated across the wider Army Training and Recruiting Agency and how those may relate to the issues of self-harm, suicide and undetermined deaths; secondly, how the Army's care regime may be improved further; and thirdly, how independent oversight might help the Army to define and maintain appropriate standards of care for young soldiers.
	The report also acknowledges the positive approach taken since August 2002 and states that
	"if Army systems of accountability continue to be developed, then systemic and cultural change may be achieved and sustained."
	That refers to the report by the deputy Adjutant General and the creation of the Army learning account—a systematic mechanism to learn and apply lessons that was put in place in 2002 following the tragic death of Private Collinson. In addition, on 3 October 2002, I commissioned the director of operational capability to conduct an audit of initial training across the armed forces. That was a hard-hitting, cross-cutting report that generated rigorous self-examination and was followed by a reappraisal last summer.
	Those reports generated a comprehensive action plan against which progress could be measured. I can report that of the 58 recommendations, 48 are implemented and progressing satisfactorily and the remaining 10 are being addressed. They include improvements in staff to trainee ratios and improved welfare facilities. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, both those documents have been placed in the Library, as will be the report of the further re-appraisal planned for the autumn.
	That commitment to improvement continues. I can announce today that I have committed further investment of more than £23 million to the training system. That will provide further instructor training, further improvement of supervisory ratios and increased opportunities for the use of recreational facilities and other welfare projects.
	I believe that the work put in train as a result of the director of operational capability's appraisals and the deputy Adjutant General's report through the Army learning account, of which 25 of 26 actions have been completed, is significant. The publication of those reports and the supporting papers to the Surrey police report reflect our commitment to openness, improvement and accountability in the delivery of initial training across the armed forces.
	The calls for a broader inquiry and independent oversight are difficult issues that I have had to consider carefully. The armed forces are rightly renowned for their ability. The performance of our servicemen and women in the most demanding operational situations is ample evidence of that. Such performance rests on rigorous training, which encourages character development, the acceptance of responsibility, discipline and the determination to succeed in adversity. However, I also recognise the need for public reassurance that the training is properly conducted and that the young men and women who join our armed forces are properly supported during that formative stage in their lives.
	For that reason, we have decided to appoint the adult learning inspectorate—the ALI—to conduct independent inspection and oversight of the armed forces' training establishments. As hon. Members know, the ALI has a statutory responsibility to examine and report on the quality of education and training for adults and young people. It is entirely independent of the Ministry of Defence and is a widely respected body.
	A memorandum of understanding will be drawn up with the ALI for an annual rolling programme of independent inspections to include the initial training establishments. The first inspection will begin in the autumn this year. I have asked for the first inspection to focus on initial training across all three services and to look specifically at care and welfare. It will include Deepcut. There will be no no-go areas. The inspectorate will report to Ministers by Easter next year and that report will be published. That will be followed by a rolling programme of inspections, which will cover all aspects of service training, including initial training and the environment in which it is conducted. It will include delivery of the training as well as the care and welfare of trainees. For the first time, all aspects of our training will be benchmarked against national standards and good practice. This will help reduce risks faced by young trainees not only in the Army but in all three services.
	We must ensure that improvements are sustained. The ALI's recommendations will be tracked centrally in the Ministry of Defence. The inspectorate will be empowered to revisit areas to check on implementation of agreed recommendations and to ensure that progress is maintained. Throughout the process, its staff will have direct access to me if they have concerns that their recommendations are not being properly considered.
	I believe that the ALI's involvement will enable us to build substantially on the work that we have already done, ensure continued and sustained improvements and enhance the transparency of what we are doing. It will complement the quality training provided by the armed forces and provide wider reassurance. It represents a positive and prompt response to the Surrey police recommendations.
	I am aware also of the calls by the families and others for a public inquiry into the four deaths. I understand why the families and others feel strongly about a public inquiry, but we need to be clear about what a public inquiry would seek to achieve. I recognise that the families want to know exactly what happened to their loved ones and why.
	In the first three cases, there have been investigations, coroner's inquests and subsequent intensive police reinvestigations. The Surrey police found no evidence to indicate any prospect of a prosecution directly related to the deaths. Private James Collinson's case, from the start the subject of an investigation by the Surrey police, has yet to be heard by the coroner. The coroner's inquiry will be held in public and is the proper place to examine the circumstances of sudden deaths.
	The courts have made it clear that the coroner can and should make sure that the jury reaches a conclusion on all the central issues of a case and that the court considers relevant wider factors. We will of course co-operate fully in the forthcoming inquest, as we have done with other inquests.
	I have weighed all these factors carefully. I do not underestimate the depth of feeling and the passion of the families who lost loved ones at Deepcut, but I am not persuaded, given the intensive investigations and inquiries, and the new measures that I have put in place, of what more a public inquiry would achieve. I know that this will be disappointing to the families but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will recognise the openness and robustness of the approach that I am reporting to the House today.
	I have made no secret of the fact that improvement was needed in the initial training regime, and we have now given the initial training system across all three services a thorough audit and overhaul. The audit led to substantive, sustained measures to improve it. With the closer engagement of the adult learning inspectorate, further audits will take place. This will ensure accountability and external oversight for the future. We have the finest armed forces, and they consistently act as a force for good in the world. The bravery and achievement of our service people on operations is testament to that. That would not be the case if the system that trained them was fundamentally flawed—quite the reverse. The gallantry shown by our personnel on operations bears testament to the underlying quality of the people we recruit, of the training that they receive and of those who provide the training. Like all large systems, this one needs improvement and regular maintenance, and I am determined that it will receive both.

Gerald Howarth: May I thank the Minister of State for providing me with an advance copy of his statement? I should also like to associate Her Majesty's Opposition with his remarks about the bombings in Baghdad involving British causalities today, and with his tribute to the very fine work that British civilians are doing on the reconstruction of Iraq.
	The deaths of the four young people while training to take their place serving in Her Majesty's armed forces is, above all, a terrible personal tragedy for each of the families concerned. The hearts of all of us in the House, not least those of us with children of our own, go out to those parents and families. It is also, as the Minister suggested, a tragedy for the Army, because it has damaged public confidence in its ability to fulfil its required duty of care towards the young men and women in its charge—a duty which I know it takes very seriously.
	We note the Government's decision to introduce some independent oversight. Perhaps, for the better assistance of the House, the Minister could remind us of some of the individuals involved in the adult learning inspectorate. Who runs it, for example? Who are some of its key members? Will he also ensure that those in the agency, who will be given substantial powers of inspection, will be familiar with the way in which the armed forces operate and with the need for the robust training of which he spoke? Will he publish the memorandum of understanding that he is about to sign with the agency? How does the Minister see the role of the current Defence Select Committee inquiry into more or less the same thing as he is setting up with the adult learning inspectorate, and will he ensure that the Committee's report is made available to the inspectorate in due course?
	During a debate in Westminster Hall last month, the Secretary of State cited the higher incidence of suicide among young males under the age of 20 in the Army compared with society at large, and said that he would order further studies. How are those studies progressing? The Minister of State stated that lessons had been implemented since 2002, but is it not the case that there have been no fewer than six internal inquiries into the Army training regime, some of which predated the recent deaths, and that too little was done to implement the resulting recommendations? In particular, the report by Lieutenant-Colonel Haes in 2001 criticised the shortage of supervisors. What is the ratio of supervisors to recruits at Deepcut today? Above all, has the Ministry of Defence accepted the serious charge levelled by Lieutenant-Colonel Haes that
	"the Army Training and Recruitment Agency is failing in certain aspects as a result of reduction in the military workforce and increased obligations"?
	Ministers cannot go on demanding of our armed forces that, in the words of General Lord Guthrie, they do
	"more and more with less and less".
	What action has been taken to ensure that young recruits do not have unsupervised access to live ammunition?
	Finally, the Surrey police noted in their excellent report:
	"It is important to recognise the significant challenges faced by the Army in reconciling the potentially conflicting demands of maintaining a necessarily robust training regime, designed to sustain it among the most professional armies in the world, while at the same time discharging its duty of care to young recruits".
	Young recruits such as 18-year-old Trooper Christopher Finney of the Blues and Royals, who was awarded the George cross for his bravery in Iraq, are testament to the overall success of the Army's training mission. As a nation, we can be justly proud of the magnificent job that Britain's young men and women are doing today in Iraq.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for both his opening and his closing remarks. He highlighted the true excellence of our training system, which produces such high quality young men and women.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the MOU relating to the ALI will be published, and the answer is yes. He also asked about the ALI, which is a Government body responsible for raising standards of education and training for young people and adults in England by inspecting and reporting on the quality of learning provision. It is well resourced and highly respected, and people with particular experience staff it, but it says that it must bring in people with particular expertise to assist it in its new role, which is why it must increase its staff. The process commences in the autumn, and the hon. Gentleman will understand the need for a pause after the announcement to allow the ALI to obtain the expertise it needs.
	The hon. Gentleman says that the House of Commons Defence Committee inquiry is similar to the ALI inquiry, but it is not. The HCDC report can cover any matter, and I cannot direct what it examines—nor should I be able to—and I am not responsible for its course. My ministerial colleagues and I are responsible only for addressing any key issues it raises, so the HCDC's position is different from that of the ALI. The ALI reports directly to a Minister, and the MOD directly resources it. If it makes recommendations, the MOD must address them and examine how it can best implement them. The difference between the ALI and the HCDC is fundamental, although we welcome the HCDC inquiry and look forward to its conclusions.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Haes report, but he could have referred to all the reports, which cover a considerable time. We have published the documents in order to ensure transparency. Lessons were learned, but in many cases the solutions were sadly not implemented. It is worth bearing in mind paragraph 4.20 of the Surrey police report, which states:
	"Surrey Police has not sought to link any of these risk factors",
	which were mentioned in previous reports,
	"specifically to the four individual deaths."
	The report goes on to make other points, too.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the ratio of supervisors to recruits at Deepcut. Ratios differ depending on the type of training establishment. The immediate improvements that have been implemented established a ratio of about 1:38, which is believed to be appropriate and is the level that should have been maintained over previous years.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about training with live ammunition, by which I suppose he also means handling firearms. Those matters must be dealt with properly, but he understands that we are training soldiers, not social workers. At some stage, soldiers must be trained, because they must use firearms and live ammunition confidently. The training system is robust, and I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my opening comment that it is tried and tested. Failures have occurred, but we are addressing them, and we must get them right.

Kevin McNamara: May I associate myself with right hon. Friend the Minister's opening remarks about the tragic deaths and woundings in Iraq?
	There will be a great deal of disappointment and, indeed, anger at the decision not to hold a public inquiry. The Deepcut families, along with those from Catterick and beyond, will feel deeply disappointed, because they want to know why and how their loved ones died.
	The thing that joins together all these families is a failure to provide mechanisms for effective inquiry and investigation of the deaths and often the cavalier treatment of the families seeking further information. Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of his statement the families will be seeking a judicial review based upon the Army precedent? Will he bear in mind that there will be grave suspicion about the point that he has raised over the independent examination of training procedures? It will not be fully independent of the MOD. It will not be established by legislation. The process will not be seen as other than an examination of training courses. It will not be seen by the families as a way of dealing with individual cases.
	Finally and specifically, is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be great disappointment that in his statement he made no reference to the need to have an independent means of complaint by recruits and others that is outside the chain of command, which would enable their grievances to be properly examined?

Adam Ingram: As my hon. Friend has said, I recognise the anger and disappointment that there will be following my statement. At a meeting that I had with my hon. Friend and the families, I tried to walk them through why I had come to this particular conclusion. We must look at the past and consider the impact of that on the present and the future. We have to separate out these particular issues.
	I was able to point out to my hon. Friend that he is part of a campaign in which some are saying that there have been 1,748 unnatural deaths in the Army since 1990 and are arguing that all of those deaths should be subject to some form of inquiry. I appreciate that there might be a narrowing down to another number. Where would such a public inquiry end, how long would it take, what would it achieve and how would it impact upon the present and the future? I had to consider how to make things better. We are putting thousands of young people through the training regime year upon year and I cannot wait for a public inquiry. I want to do things now if things need to be improved upon. That is why I have decided to appoint the adult learning inspectorate. Its work will be fully independent. It is a calumny to suggest that because something is not laid down by statute there cannot be independence and that those involved cannot be robust, cannot be interrogative and cannot criticise a Government Department. I do not accept that.
	The ALI will be given resources. If it is felt that that is not happening, the ALI will have immediate access to me as a Minister. If there is a blockage within the Department, I want to know what is going on. I have no doubt that the ALI will make sure that the public are aware if there are any failings on the part of the MOD. We will be held to public account.
	My hon. Friend asked about an ombudsman for the armed forces. I think that that is a step too far because there is a chain of command. The armed forces are a unique set of people—there is no doubt or question about that. They are asked to do things that no one else is asked to do. That respect of the chain of command is vital. We have a zero tolerance policy towards bullying, harassment and racial discrimination. Does that mean that we are perfect? No, it does not. Does it mean that we can try to be better? Yes, it does. I think that the ALI is an important step towards achieving that. My hon. Friend said that the families may wish to seek a judicial review. That is a matter for them and the courts.

Paul Keetch: I thank the Minister for an early sight of the statement. I concur with him on sending condolences from the House to those members of the armed forces and British citizens who have been killed today in Iraq.
	I welcome the statement but like other hon. Members I am disappointed. We should note the great work that has been done by hon. Members on both sides of the House in pursuing these matters. The families have been so stoic and so strong in their campaign.
	On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome what the Ministry of Defence has already done—the Army learning account, the audit by the director of operational capability and, today, the £23 million addition for training. Will the Minister tell us whether that is for the Army specifically or whether it will be used across all three armed services?
	I also welcome the adult learning inspectorate report. Again, can the Minister for the armed forces say whether it will carry out a one-off inspection of training bases or is that inspection to be ongoing? If so, for how long? While I accept that that is all very good for the future, the central question as to what happened in the past has not been addressed. I suspect that none of us is any closer to knowing what happened at Deepcut.
	I too pay tribute to our armed forces for their professionalism and gallantry, and I accept that their training has to be different from any other, but sadly, I suspect that eventually there will be some form of independent inquiry into what happened at Deepcut, although that will come after more delay, more heartache and more legal wrangling. Does the Minister not believe that it would have been better to have announced such an inquiry today—better for the families, better for the MOD in the long run and, most importantly, better for the members of our armed forces?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. He asks what the £23 million is for. I indicated in the statement broadly where it would go—into the initial training environment. It will go where it is primarily needed in those areas. The balance has to be struck and like all resources, they have to be properly allocated.
	The hon. Gentleman also asks about whether the ALI will make one report or whether this will be the first of a series. Again, I made that clear, I hope, in my statement, a copy of which I gave to him. There will be an initial inspection during which the ALI will visit Deepcut. It will make a report by Easter, so there will be a six-month study period after which there will be a rolling programme of inspections. Again as I said in my statement, the ALI will also be entitled to go back and look at what it has already studied, ensuring—if a recommendation has been made and we have said that something will be fixed—that it has the right to reinvestigate.
	I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that he does not know what happened at Deepcut. I suggest that the Surrey police report tells us a lot. What we cannot do is say with certainty precisely what happened. He is of the view that a public inquiry will be able to achieve something that Surrey police did not—after 900 interviews and taking 1,500 witness statements—and decide that there is new evidence. Well, I have to say that the Surrey police report, after 15 months of investigation, has given us a good overhaul and examination. I recommend that he read it again; it may help him.

Ronnie Campbell: The Minister is aware that I raised a case last week regarding Catterick camp. I understand the idea of an independent review, but it would not make any difference to the recruit whose case I raised. When he went to see his commanding officer—the Tuesday after I raised it on the Monday—he was told that his career was in jeopardy. He was told by the military police, in front of his mother, that his career could be in jeopardy. I can tell the Minister now that he has left the Army. If that is the attitude at that level, how can an independent inquiry, or anything independent, get to the bottom of anything that goes on in the Army?

Adam Ingram: I am sorry to hear about that series of events. When my hon. Friend raised them with me, we immediately launched an investigation of the circumstances. I have not had a report on that, but his words today will again be subject to examination. It is a matter of regret that the young person has decided to leave the Army.

Ronnie Campbell: He was told his career was in jeopardy.

Adam Ingram: I am not saying that my hon. Friend is not telling me accurately about the matters that have been reported to him, but I have to find out the veracity of this from the other side, as we all have to do: when we are dealing with any constituent, we should try to seek the balance to the argument. It may prove to be the case that what he says is right. If that is the case, it is unacceptable.

Nick Hawkins: First, may I associate myself with the Minister's words about the tragic deaths in Iraq and, of course, the four deaths at Deepcut in my constituency?
	Does the Minister agree that Surrey police have done an excellent job in producing such a thorough report? Will he recognise that in my constituency there is huge support for our local regiment, the Royal Logistic Corps? The senior officers now at Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut, who have been responsible for the co-operation with the Surrey police investigation, but were not, of course, the senior officers in command at the time of any of the deaths, have had an enormously difficult job to do, both in terms of retaining local confidence in the Army and in rebutting a great deal of uninformed, prejudicial and sometimes even hysterical media reporting. Will the Minister recognise that those local people who support the Army want the Royal Logistic Corps to stay in our area, want the Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut to have a good future and are concerned about the risk that, in order to remove an embarrassing name, Deepcut might be disposed of? Is he prepared to examine that and, if necessary, meet me and leading local councillors and council officers, to discuss the long-term future of the Army in my area?

Adam Ingram: I echo the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about the Surrey police. It was a thorough investigation. They honestly recognised the failings of the civilian police in matters of this nature in the opening section of the report. The civilian police should take immediate primacy in all such investigations and it is a matter for the civil courts to deal with through the coroner's inquest or whatever else may follow. I repeat, however, that the 15-month report, with 900 witnesses and 1,500 witness statements, was, without question, very intensive.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right about the officers, non-commissioned officers and instructors of the RLC at Deepcut. I have spoken to many of them and I know how hurt they are by all this. When criticisms are made, we must examine the past and the impact on the present and the possible future. We put thousands of young people through that training system, not just at Deepcut but elsewhere, and those who are recruited into that process, and those who run it, must have certainty about its quality. As has been recognised in statements to the House, there is a high quality that is evidenced by what is produced. As to the future of the barracks, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has responsibility for training establishments and I am sure that he will be only too happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and whoever else he may want to bring along at the appropriate time.

Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend will know that his decision to deny a public inquiry will distress people such as my constituents, Harry and Linda Benton, who still need to find an answer to what happened to their son, Sean. My right hon. Friend said in his statement that the place for that was within the inquest system. Is he really suggesting that, after eight years, the only answer is to reopen inquests so that they may get to the truth?

Adam Ingram: Yes, I am. I have faith in the coroners' system. Now, with the European convention on human rights, the Government can take great credit for putting into place that corpus of law, which defined how such bodies should operate in the interests of victims to get at the truth and examine key areas. One of the cases, that of James Collinson, has still to be considered by the coroner and I suggest that we should wait to see what comes out of that. Clearly, if there are criticisms of the MOD or matters that we have to address, we must take them on board. To those who may think that that is already the case, I have to say that that is not a proven case and we must wait for the findings of that inquest. Legal remedies are open to others if they wish to return to the civil courts.

Annabelle Ewing: I associate myself with the remarks about the tragic deaths in Iraq made at the outset. Since James Collinson was found dead at Deepcut on 23 March 2002, his mother Yvonne and his father Jim are no nearer to finding out the truth as to how and why their 17-year-old son died. Surrey police have apologised to all four families for not maintaining primacy in the investigation and for delegating that to the Army. The Army concluded that it was suicide after only three days, with no proper forensic evidence gathering having been carried out. Does the Minister therefore accept that, by refusing a public inquiry today, he is prolonging the anguish of the Collinson family and the other families, who will now be forced to go to the courts to seek a ruling on the issue? Surely this is manifestly unjust and fails to restore public confidence in the Army and the MOD.

Adam Ingram: I do not accept that there is distrust of, or lack of confidence in, the Army. Some feel that they have a particular grievance because of the sad tragedies with which they have had to deal, but that should not be extended across the whole community. To do so would constitute an unfair criticism.
	The hon. Lady is right that the Collinson family are no nearer to discovering the truth. The inquest is a mechanism by which that may be achieved, but whatever course is adopted, there is no certainty that the truth will materialise. Perhaps we shall never get to the truth.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the investigation into James Collinson's death, which is being conducted by the special investigations branch and the Royal Military Police. Following a meeting only an hour and a half ago I have checked again and found that the Surrey police did have primacy, as they should have had in the other three cases.
	The hon. Lady said that the lack of a public inquiry was prolonging the agony. I could have decided—and have been asked—to arrange an inquiry into only one case, into all four, into 50 or into some greater number. An inquiry into that greater number would have been very long-running, while an inquiry focusing on a specific group would no doubt have led to repeated judicial requests to open the lines of inquiry elsewhere.
	It is important to ensure that we employ the right processes. I would have expected the hon. Lady to acknowledge all we have done through the report—the director of operational capability, the Army learning account and the new adult learning inspectorate. She should at least give us some credit for taking on the issues and trying to make things better.

Joan Humble: I pay credit to my right hon. Friend for introducing openness and accountability to the initial training regime, but will he acknowledge that openness and accountability, and indeed the duty of care, should extend beyond that regime and must follow young people when they go into their units and regiments so that their parents can be reassured about the responsibility of the Army? When, tragically, a young person such as my constituent Derek McGregor dies in barracks, his family too should be able to get the answers they so desperately need.

Adam Ingram: I agree and I think that that applies to any untimely death. We have a responsibility to try to give the best possible information to the families of victims. I approve of my hon. Friend's approach, but there is unquestionably a strong duty of care and responsibility throughout the armed forces, for the simple reason that if there were not, we would have a failed, broken system. Soldiers depend on a command structure that knows what it is doing and can deal authoritatively with difficult situations. Providing proper resources will help to ensure that people work as a cohesive team as far as is possible. The chain of command has that duty of care and I think that it is discharged extremely well. We are not perfect. Mistakes will happen, and when they do we must find out the truth.

Robert Key: Of course, our hearts go out to those killed in Iraq and especially to the families of the young people who lost their lives at Deepcut. Does the Minister agree that the Adjutant-General and his staff are delivering for this country the best military training available anywhere in the world? If, like me, the Minister has spent time with the Army training regiment in Winchester or at the Army foundation college in Harrogate, he will have been amazed at the commitment of those young people and their families, who have complete confidence in the Army. It would be a travesty if this tragedy led to a lack of confidence among the families of young people who are considering joining the military.

Adam Ingram: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I wrote to more than 200 Members of this House and the other place to invite them to visit training establishments. To date, only about 12—a handful of Members—have taken up that opportunity, although several proposed visits were cancelled. I wish that everyone would make such a visit. Like the hon. Gentleman and me, they would find at those establishments tremendous commitment right through the command structure—not just among instructors but, importantly, among the young people. I had the privilege of being involved in a passing out parade and talking to the parents. They spoke of how the young ones whom they gave into the care of the Army were turned around into mature, forward-looking, confident and well-trained young adults with a future ahead of them. We could all learn from making such contact.

Eric Joyce: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about the potential improvement in systems. Of course, it is true that all systems can be improved, but does he agree that it is vital that we do not forget that the Army Training and Recruiting Agency is an enormously successful training organisation and that its training regime is among the most systematic of any employer, not just in this country but in the world? It is precisely that on which the performance of our troops in the field is built and based.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend's experience gives him intimate knowledge of this issue. He is right about ATRA, which is not only a high achiever but respected worldwide for what it achieves. That is why we are consistently asked to help other countries to develop training regimes that meet the high standards and quality that we set. There is nothing more that I can add to that eulogy. There is much in ATRA's training regime of which we can be proud.

Lembit �pik: I am encouraged that all the letters, parliamentary questions, Prime Minister's questions and meetings, along with the Adjournment debate on this issue, have finally caused some movement in the Ministry of Defence. Nevertheless, does the Minister accept that resisting a public inquiry into the four deaths at Deepcut just because of the many other deaths in the Army simply is not acceptable? The Government should be willing to investigate any death in uncertain circumstances. Does he recognise that we are calling for a public inquiry into the four deaths at Deepcut specifically to answer the question of why and how these young people died? Does he accept that if one's child were shot five times in the stomach or twice in the head, one would reasonably expect the Government to leave no stone unturned in answering the question whether the death was the result of murder, manslaughter or suicide and why it happened?
	Finally, Bob Quick, author of the fifth report and deputy chief constable of Surrey police, confirmed to me today that, although it may not be appropriate for him to define the type of inquiry, he believes that it must be broad and independent. Does the Minister accept that we need to investigate the past in order to understand the future? Does he further understand that if the Government refuse to provide an inquiry of their own volition, they are likely to be forced to do so by a court?

Adam Ingram: I appreciate the intensity of interest and effort on the part of the hon. Gentleman, who has been very active on this issue; indeed, he and I have discussed it many times privately, on the Floor of the House and elsewhere. I am intrigued by what he said about the comments of Bob Quick, the senior police officer involved. Mr. Quick is not saying that what we are doing is wrong and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman asked him that question. Mr. Quick would recognise that we have a well-structured approach to dealing with the current and future situation; indeed, that is what the Surrey police asked of us. They asked for a broad inquiry into the duty of care regime and for oversight, both of which the ALI will provide. I do not wish to get into an unnecessary conflict with those outside this House who are commenting on the matter, but I shall find out just what the view of the Surrey police is.
	In trying to find out the facts of the situation and why someone died in a given set of circumstances, the police engaged two independent forensic teams of experts to look at that, so that one could check on the other. They could not come to the firm conclusions that other people may have come to. Some of those people have experience but have not published their findings. Others may just have a view on all this. Through their intensive and comprehensive approach, the police have trawled over all this, both in forensic terms and in speaking to all the people about the day of, or the day prior to, the sad event. Therefore, I recommend that those who have not read the Surrey police report read it and await the inquest into James Collinson's death.

Harry Cohen: The reasons for the four deaths at Deepcut remain obscure, which is unsatisfactory, but may I question the Minister on two aspects of his statement? First, I welcome the role that he is giving the adult learning inspectorate. That concerns training, but what about improving counselling for members of the armed forces? Counselling should not be seen as a sign of weakness. For example, people in the upper and middle classes use it regularly. Why cannot we have improved counselling?
	Secondly, the Minister acknowledges that the families were treated poorly. Why cannot we have better treatment? Will that be addressed so that families are treated better when there is a bereavement? For example, can we have bereavement counselling, a   24-hour link to a liaison officer for the unit concerned and access to all the information in relation to a death?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend raises two important issues. He raises first the ALI's role and implies that it will be interested only in the training modules that young people will undertake. That is not the case. It will look at care and welfare aspects, too. It is not for me to direct the ALI on how to do thatmy role is only to establish the mechanism by which it can be donebut I am sure that it will approach it on the basis that, for people to be best trained, they need to have a roundness of environment. Again, those in the armed forces are in unique circumstances. That is why they will bring in specialists to assist them in their understanding of all that.
	My hon. Friend is right about the better treatment of families. We have recognised that the Deepcut families were not well treated. We cannot rewrite history but it sits heavy on us that those things happened and that certain things were said that should not have been said. What I have tried to do in terms of this is to meet with the families. We have learned in the recent pastthis is the approach that we now havethat we need to have a better and quicker system of communicating with families and a more sensitive way of dealing with them and that we need to give them the best support we can. They have given their loved ones into our care and we have a duty of care to them as well.

Simon Hughes: As another supporter of the armed services, may I say that people will be grateful for the Minister's constructive suggestions, but they have not gone any way to answering the questions about the recent past? Two of the three inquests have returned an open verdict. I would be grateful if he considered looking over the history of the Stephen Lawrence case, where the Home Office resisted an inquiry, saying that there was a prosecution option and an inquest option, but eventually gave in and there was great benefit from the public inquiry. In the Marchioness case, the responsible Department resisted an inquiry, saying that there was an inquest option and a prosecution option but gave in, to the great benefit of everyone The case and demand for the inquiry will not go away until the families have their chance in public to put the questions that they want to put and those responsible have the obligation in public to answer those questions.

Adam Ingram: I recognise that, but we should not take one given set of circumstances and say that, when something goes wrong anywhere within government, we should automatically proceed to a public inquiry. I think that we are moving inexorably towards thatpeople are arguing for that. It has been reported to me that, in the Today programme this morning, there were three items relating to the MOD and what was the request on each of those issues? It was for a public inquiry.
	We cannot run the Government on the basis of public inquiries. They may be good for lawyers, but they are not for the good governance of this country.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman about the Surrey police report. He will have read it and know how exhaustive it is. He will also know that the evidence gathered is not for Ministers. I have not seen the evidence; it is a matter for due process. If a coroner has decided that one case is still to be determined through an inquest, let us wait and see what comes out of it. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it may not go away may be right, but he may be wrong. It may, in that particular case, be resolved.

Harry Barnes: The case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) raises an important question: how can we enable troops facing abuse from their colleagues or superiors to become whistleblowers to the adult learning inspectorate? Will the process be restricted to training? In the past, I have had to put anonymous complaints to the Minister because my constituents did not want their details revealed. I realise that, when complaints are anonymous, it makes it more difficult to do anything about them. It is easier for my right hon. Friend to deal with cases when he knows what the information is, where it applies and to whom it relates. It is important for complaints to be followed up and for troops to be assured that their complaints will be dealt with independently.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend misses a fundamental point. The adult learning inspectorate is not the only organisation that will be doing this and it has a much bigger remit in the day-to-day care of individual trainees. In each and every establishment, young people will have access to welfare servicesto the chaplaincy and other ports of calland be able to report any matters that concern them.
	I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we have zero tolerance towards bullying and harassment, but I must make the point that that will not stop bullying. It will not stop it in the Army, any more than it will stop it in the BBC, the health service or other walks of life. Bullying goes on out there; what we must do is put in place mechanisms that encourage people confidently to raise their concerns and take them forward. My hon. Friend mentioned the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), but I have already answered his question. We will find out exactly what happened there. If those events did occur as recounted, they are unacceptable.

Mike Hancock: Can the Minister give an assurance that the ALI will be given every support and resource to enable servicemen and women who have left the armed services because of problems that they experienced during their recruitment to provide evidence. It should be done through a confidential phone line or another process whereby they are actively encouraged to present their experience.
	I echo the views of many hon. Members in expressing my disappointment about the fact that a public inquiry is not being established. It was apparent throughout the Deepcut activities that a duty of care applied to the armed forces in respect of those young people and their parentsand they failed miserably to exercise that duty. Is the Minister certain that what happened will never occur againthat a 17-year-old who might later be found to have a psychological disorder that made him unsuitable for work in the armed forces will not be given a loaded weapon with live ammunition and sent out on guard duty alone?

Adam Ingram: The ALI will be given every support and resource. The screening of trainees is one of the issues that are being considered. However, it is not an exact science and that applies to all walks of lifeeven, I would suggest, in this place. It is not easy to identify people who cannot take stress and who may react in a particular way under pressure or because of other factors. We cannot screen out everyone through those processes. The hon. Gentleman is asking for the impossible.
	In terms of singleton guard duty, that will not be the case for young 17-year-olds.

Hugh Robertson: I associate myself with the remarks made about Iraq and with the Minister's commentsand the dignified response of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)about the tragic events at Deepcut.
	How will the Minister ensure that efforts to improve the care of young men and women at a very vulnerable stage in their career do not impact on the Army's ability to deliver relevant and tough trainingprecisely the sort of training that attracts thousands of people to the armed forces and, critically, saves lives on operations afterwards?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has an intimate knowledge of these matters. He is right that a fine balance must be struck. We cannot run the armed forces in a politically correct way, to use the jargon. The situation is unique, because we put people in harm's way and expect them to kill on our behalf. We have to train them in very particular ways. I am not an expert in that, but I have every confidence in those who perform that role on our behalf. I repeat that many thousands of the young people who go through the training are of the highest quality. Some may not make it in life, but many have been given opportunities that they would never have thought of had they not joined the armed forces. I pay tribute to all that is done within the training regimes, to all the commanding officers, the instructors and everyone involved in the process.

Points of Order

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the Daily Mail has a report under the title Watchdog to combat the Army bullying, which accurately predicted the content of today's statement. One of the good things about the campaign as a whole has been the trust among parents, MPs and the Department in maintaining confidentiality, so that disturbs me. May I ask, through you, that the MinisterI do not believe that he leaked or spoke to the press himselfensures that there is no prospect of any such leak from those in the know, because wherever we stand on the specifics of the case, such leaks are detrimental to the overall spirit of trust that we have in general enjoyed among all the parties?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot institute an inquiry, but I can say that the Minister came to the House and I appreciate that.

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Both the Minister and the Opposition spokesman referred to Iraq during the statement, but I sensed that you would not wish the subject to be pursued in detail on this occasion. Given the seriousness of the situation, may I gently suggest that perhaps the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence should make a statement to the House tomorrow on events in Iraq?

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the matter will be considered.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything you can do to protect the relevance of the House? You will know from a glance at the business that is about to commence that we face the absurd prospect of debating the 12 groups of new clauses and amendments that you have selected in only four and a half hours. By my calculation, that is something like 25 minutes per group, and at least two of the groups contain 25 amendments and new clauses. This is in danger of bringing of the House into disrepute, and I wonder whether it is not time to look at all this again and find some way of not getting into the position of neglecting our duty properly to examine legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman could not be accused at any time of neglecting his duty, but his point of order is simply taking more time out of the main business, because it is not a matter for me.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Civil Contingencies Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 11
	  
	Scotland: Cross-Border Collaboration

'(1)   Where a person or body listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 has a duty under section 2 or 4, the Scottish Ministers may make regulations
	(a)   permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty;
	(b)   permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to provide information, either on request or in other specified circumstances, to the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty.
	(2)   The Scottish Ministers may issue guidance about a matter addressed in regulations under subsection (1).
	(3)   Where a person or body listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 has a duty under section 2 or 4, a Minister of the Crown may make regulations
	(a)   permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 1 or 3 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 2 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty;
	(b)   permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 1 or 3 of that Schedule to provide information, either on request or in other specified circumstances, to the person or body listed in Part 2 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty.
	(4)   A Minister of the Crown may issue guidance about a matter addressed in regulations under subsection (3).
	(5)   If a Minister of the Crown makes an order under section 5(1) imposing a duty on a person or body listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1, the Scottish Ministers may make an order
	(a)   permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the duty;
	(b)   permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to provide information, either on request or in other specified circumstances, to the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the duty.
	(6)   If the Scottish Ministers make an order under section 5(2) imposing a duty on a person or body listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1, a Minister of the Crown may make an order
	(a)   permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 1 or 3 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 2 of that Schedule in connection with the duty;
	(b)   permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 1 or 3 of that Schedule to provide information, either on request or in other specified circumstances, to the person or body listed in Part 2 of that Schedule in connection with the duty.
	(7)   A person or body shall
	(a)   comply with regulations or an order under this section, and
	(b)   have regard to guidance under this section.
	(8)   In this Act, except where the contrary intention appears
	(a)   a reference to regulations under section 2(3) includes a reference to regulations under subsection (3) above,
	(b)   a reference to regulations under section 2(4) includes a reference to regulations under subsection (1) above,
	(c)   a reference to regulations under section 4(2) includes a reference to regulations under subsection (3) above,
	(d)   a reference to regulations under section 4(3) includes a reference to regulations under subsection (1) above,
	(e)   a reference to an order under section 5(1) includes a reference to an order under subsection (6) above, and
	(f)   a reference to an order under section 5(2) includes a reference to an order under subsection (5) above.'.[Ms Blears.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 82 to 89.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want first to put on the record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who cannot be with us this afternoon because he is on paternity leave as the proud father of a daughter, Eve, I think, born about 10 days ago. I am sure the House would wish to join me in that.
	I am very much looking forward to the debate this afternoon. Having briefed myself fairly rapidly over the weekend, I know that the Bill has already undergone a huge amount of scrutiny, including pre-legislative scrutiny and two forms of public consultation. There is a plethora of information before us, but I am sure that we will have more extremely good scrutiny this afternoon.
	As the House will be aware, the Government, working closely with the devolved Administrations, seek to ensure that civil protection is delivered in a coherent fashion throughout the United Kingdom. New clause 11 and Government amendments Nos. 82 to 89 seek to address the issue of cross-border co-operation and information sharing.
	Co-operation and information sharing are absolutely fundamental to effective civil protection arrangements. Emergencies are no respecters of boundaries, and it is important that collaboration take place across borders as well as within them. The amendments that I now propose follow from further discussions that the Government have had with the Scottish Executive. We have looked again at the circumstances in which co-operation and exchange of information should take place, and have concluded that a number of changes to the Bill are required.
	As a product of the devolution settlement, in this Bill, Scottish responders not exercising reserved functions come under the jurisdiction of Scottish Ministers. Local responders in England and Walesand responders performing reserved functions in Scotlandcome under the jurisdiction of UK Ministers. At present, Scottish Ministers can require Scottish responders to co- operate with other Scottish responders, and UK Ministers can require English, Welsh or UK-wide responders to cooperate with each other, but there is no power to require cross-border co-operation and information sharing.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is not in his place today, as he highlighted the lacuna in the legislation in Committee. It would appear to be an important gap in our legislative armoury.

Richard Allan: I am grateful to the Minister for crediting my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) with having picked that point up in Committee on 29  January, with his typically detailed eye. Unfortunately, he had a constituency engagement today that he could not cancel, but he is devastated not to be here. I hope that the Minister will understand.

Hazel Blears: I am sorry to hear that he is devastated, but we are grateful to him for his sharp and keen eye. I understand that proceedings on the Bill have been non-partisan, and I am happy to continue in that vein and give credit where it is due.
	An example of the problem is that if the Maritime and Coastguard Agency required information held by a chief constable or a local authority in Scotland, there is currently no power for Ministers to require such disclosure. I understand that two other organisations that exercise reserved powers in Scotlandthe Health and Safety Executive and the British Transport Policecould have similar problems. There is also currently no means of imposing an obligation on responders to collaborate across borders. When planning for any incidentnot just a terrorist incident, but perhaps a plane crash or spread of an infectious diseaseit is important that all relevant authorities be familiar with each other's plans, whether or not there is a national boundary separating them. There need to be clear powers to ensure that that happens.
	New clause 11 and amendments Nos. 82 and 83 will allow Ministers to ensure that such collaboration takes place, thereby ensuring the coherence of the UK civil protection framework. Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 supplement these provisions by ensuring that the general provisions in the Bill relating to enforcement and information sharing apply to cross border situations.
	Given their respective roles in managing the civil protection framework across the UK, it is also important to ensure that communication between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive works well.Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 are technical amendments intended to clarify the requirement to consult each other where that is appropriate. The effect of those amendments is to establish a clear requirement on UK Ministers to consult Scottish Ministers when making provisions affecting responders exercising functions in Scotland. There is also a clear requirement on Scottish Ministers to consult UK Ministers when making any order under part 1 of the Bill. That will ensure that, while the UK Government and the Scottish Executive have responsibilities in the Bill that rightly reflect the devolution settlement, they will exercise those responsibilities in a coherent and consistent fashion.

Oliver Heald: I associate the official Opposition with the good wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and his wife and baby girl. I am sure that he will find this a busy time, although not, I hope, as noisy as it is in Parliamentalthough you never can tell with babies.
	In Committee we had a detailed discussion of the relationships between the parts of the United Kingdom in connection with emergencies and the way in which they should be tackled under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The principle of reciprocity, and of ensuring that each part of the United Kingdom was capable of responding effectively, was discussed at considerable length by all members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who made a great deal of it, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who has already been mentioned.
	Our particular concern was that in border areas there are, for example, hospitals, strategic health authorities and other authorities that provide services on both sides of the border. The Minister has mentioned one or two of the other authorities, such as maritime authorities and the Health and Safety Executive. We were keen that the Bill should make such arrangements more transparent than they originally were, and I am pleased that it has been possible, in consultation with the Scottish Parliament, to agree on more effective and better defined wording. I welcome the new clause and the amendments, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give a bit more detail about how the arrangements would workwith a hospital authority, for example.

Richard Allan: I, too, associate myself with the good wishes that have been offered to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. We shall miss him today, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), because in the good-humoured proceedings in Committee they traded lawyerly tales about places in Scotland of which I know nothing. It is a pleasure to be able to speak about the first group of amendments on a note of concord, rather than the discord that we often experience in the House.
	The amendments are indeed welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland had asked me to draft some amendments to pick up the issues that he raised in Committee; I am relieved that the Government have been able to do that, so that I did not have to tackle the job myself. We identified the problem, but the solution was clearly going to be complex in drafting terms, and the amendments before us deal adequately with that complexity.
	I am pleased that the Minister cited word for word the example offered by my hon. Friend in Committee. There is a true spirit of cross-party co-operation when the Minister's speech quotes elements of Opposition Members' concerns when she responds to them. That reflects the fact that my hon. Friend precisely identified a difficulty with the original wording, and I am comforted by the Minister's assurance that her amendments seek to address that precise difficulty. There is no more to be said about this group of amendments. I welcome them.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister said that there had been consultations with the Scottish Parliament. Were there similar consultations with the National Assembly for Wales? The Assembly says that the problem is that
	the Bill does not take into account the constitutional and practical implications of devolution in Wales and does not provide the National Assembly with adequate powers to ensure the proper preparation and implementation of emergency plans in Wales.
	That is not a party view; it comes to the House from the appropriate Committeethe Local Government and Public Services Committee, chaired by the appropriate Minister. The Committee continues:
	The contradiction implicit in having political accountability for matters for which legal responsibility has not been devolved has since been recognised, with the Welsh Assembly Government requesting the transfer of animal health and welfare powers to the Assembly. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has confirmed that the UK Government does not expect to have difficulty with this proposal and the transfer of powers is now scheduled for autumn 2004.
	A specific example of the constitutional contradiction that is written into the Bill appears in clause 9, which allows Ministers of the Crown to require category 1 and 2 responders to provide information on compliance with part 1 of the Bill and to specify how and when such information should be provided.
	At present, however, the Bill does not require the UK Government even to notify the National Assembly that they are obtaining such information from agencies in Wales. Many such bodies obtain funding from the National Assembly, and work in partnership with it to deliver services in devolved areas. As a result, their performance in those areas is already monitored by the National Assembly.
	The Local Government and Public Services Committee believes that the Bill should be amended to confirm that monitoring powers under clause 9 will be given to the National Assembly for Wales or at the very least to require the UK Government to consult the National Assembly before exercising those powers. The Committee recommends that part 1 should be amended to confirm that the powers of the National Assembly regarding Wales are roughly equivalent to those given to Scottish Ministers regarding Scotland. In turn, that would remove the need for clause 15, which requires the National Assembly to be consulted or give its consent before Ministers or the Crown act under certain provisions in part 1 relating to Wales.
	Similarly, to ensure that practical issues arising from an emergency in Wales can be dealt with swiftly and efficiently, the Committee recommends that clause 19 be amended to allow the National Assembly to make emergency regulations concerning events or situations. I shall not deal with the matter at further length, because time is short, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has pointed out. However, I wanted to put the issue on the record, as Ministers in Cardiff and the Committee have been asking for the change. If the Minister cannot give me a reply today, I should be grateful if she could write telling me what consideration and what meetings, if any, have taken place on those important issues.

Eric Forth: I am glad that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has disrupted what was becoming a cosy, consensual, self-congratulatory session all-round. I always become suspicious when Front Bench spokesmen congratulate one another on how marvellous everything has been, how productive their discussions have been, how wonderful the Committee debates were, and generally what a jolly good job they have all done. The hon. Gentleman has, in his inimitable way, put his finger on the downside of devolution. That is not what he meant to do, but he has done so none the less.
	We have been told all too often about the wonders of devolution and how our relatively small country will do so much better if it is broken up into its constituent parts. We have extra bureaucracies, additional Governments and Assemblies and so on, and for the first time, a statute has set out how difficult such an arrangement can be.
	It is a great challenge in a genuinely integrated state to respond to the horrors of terrorism, but it is much more difficult to do so when we must deal with the multifarious bureaucracies that we have been crazy enough to set up in the United Kingdom. Proposed subsection (1)(a), for example, says that regulations may be made
	permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty.
	That is just for starters, and sets the tone for pages of jargon that attempt to identify the ways in which we will achieve the laudable aims that the Minister set out at the beginning of our debatecollaboration, familiarity with each other's plans and so on. However, we must remember that we are discussing a complex set of organisations that, in normal circumstances, it would be difficult to encourage to co-operate with one another, including category 1 responderslocal authorities, emergency services, health services and so onand category 2 responders, including electricity, gas, and water and communications suppliers, railway and underground companies, airports, harbours and highways.
	All these will be expected to share each other's plans and, no doubt, each other's aspirations, to collaborate and co-operate in what will inevitably be the most difficult imaginable circumstancesand that against a background of the fact that we have deliberately and gratuitously created, some would argue, artificial and unnecessary borders and lines of demarcation within this small country under the rubric of devolution.
	Here for the first time we have a very real problem created by devolution and, incidentally, some hidden costs, I suspect. In all the wallowing in mutual and self-congratulation that we heard a moment ago, I did not hear anybody mention costs. Does anybody imagine that the process will be cost free? Has the Minister given an estimate, or has she even been asked what the costs will be? Maybe one of those who spent such a delightful time in Committee teased that information out. I hope they did; it certainly was their duty to do so. If members of the Committee did not do any teasing, this is the time for us to do some teasing on Report.
	We are entitled to know, albeit in general terms, the likely cost of all the collaboration and co-operation, given what we expect to emerge from the complex working not only of the schedule, but of the new clause and all that goes with it. Surely if the provisions are to be made to work properly, not only are the Scottish Executive and the relevant and parallel English ministries involved, but all the category 1 and category 2 responders, all of which are being asked to do something additional, over and above what they would have done before, if, as we are led to believe, the work of the Committee was so valuable in identifying the additional work that had to be done to make the collaboration and co-operation that much more effective.

Richard Shepherd: There is a way of short-circuiting that. The Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998 are not entrenched legislationwe do not have such a thing. All the consultations could be bypassed by making the Act a United Kingdom Act and giving the authority to the central authorities in Whitehall.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an intriguing thought. We could undevolve, if I might express it in that rather inelegant way, those functions that we considered essential to deal properly with the sort of contingencies that we fear might arise under the Bill. That at least would be a consideration. Just as an aside, my own favoured approach would be that from time to time we should offer people further referendums to ask them whether they still want what some of them, at least, voted for those years ago in terms of devolution. I am very keen that the people of London, for example, be offered a further referendum

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That may well be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but we ought to be debating in a little more detail new clause 11

Eric Forth: More detail? Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Delighted for your

Madam Deputy Speaker: rather than referendums.

Eric Forth: I thought that might tease the House a little, Madam Deputy Speaker, but your instructions are for me to go into more detail. How can I possibly ignore that? Let us get on with the detail, shall we? Having just run round the course fairly briefly, we can now really get down to what it is all about.
	Under Category 1 Responders: Generalthis is the detail of the schedule that is referred to in the new clausethe local authorities enumerated in relation to England are county councils, district councils, borough councilsat least, the schedule states a London borough council. I wonder whether the other unitary authorities have been missed out. The schedule does not mention them. We have county councils, district councils and a London borough council, the common council of the City of London and the council of the Isles of Scilly. We then come, in relation to Wales, to county councils and a county borough council. Presumably that subsumes the others as well.
	Already it is clear that there is a complex of local authorities at various levels that are tasked as category 1 responders to participate in the process that the new clause envisages. We now have the potential to begin to seethis is the point I was making before I got side-tracked into referendums, which I will leave for another daywhat the real cost could be.
	With regard to costs, I always stand to be corrected by those who spent so much time in Committee doing such useful work in collaboration with one another, as we have been told. Perhaps they know or have some idea of the additional costs of the tasks identified by the new clause.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the key to whether the Bill will work is extra resources. Questions were asked many times about that issue. During pre-legislative scrutiny, approximately 200 responders made the same point, and answer there was none.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have always had my suspicions of pre-legislative scrutiny. I know that we are all supposed to say that it is a wonderful thing and that we should have lots more of it, but one sometimes wonders about it. Sometimes it identifies more questions than answers, and this is a very good case in point. It should be possible to pursue those questions during the parliamentary process, but given the time restrictions, there may not be the opportunity to do so. None the less, we have plenty of time to consider the amendments before us. That is why this is a very appropriate point for us to rehearse yet again the question of costs.

Richard Shepherd: On inquiry as to whether Walsall metropolitan borough council had made an assessment of the cost implications, my emergency planning officer said:
	The full impact of the Act will not be fully assessed until the regulations come outthe detail. The regulations will give a clear idea of the impact on local authorities.
	I do not think that the Government are in a position to give any indication of the cost.

Eric Forth: Oh dear; it is worse than I thought. We are being asked yet again to sign a blank cheque.

Oliver Heald: rose

Eric Forth: It appears that my hon. Friend is about to give us the details of that cheque.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend is making an important point about money. The Government say that they are not increasing the funding and that the civil grant, which deals with civil contingencies, will remain at the same level this year as last. It is hard to reconcile that position, however, with the extra duties that are being imposed on councils in the new clause.

Eric Forth: Should we be allowing the Bill to proceed if we are completely ignorant of the likely costs? Would we not be failing in our duty as the custodians of the taxpayer's interests if we were to pass the Bill, admirable though its intent may be, without any idea of what it will cost either at local authority level, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out, or at a broader level, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) implies? Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) indicated, we do not have any idea about the National Assembly for Wales or his local authorities.

Jonathan Djanogly: I believe that councils throughout the country are holding staged events to put the procedures to the test, so the costs will probably become a lot more apparent over coming months. My right hon. Friend may therefore have a very good point in saying that we are looking at the issues too early, as the costings will not be available until the councils have carried out those procedures.

Eric Forth: In that case, this is a bit like horses and carts. We are apparently producing some very complex legislation. Let us be in no doubt that the new clause is extremely complicated and ambitious in what it seeks to do. The Minister outlined what it seeks to achieve in terms of collaboration, mutual exchange of information, co-operation across borders and the like. All those intentions are admirablelet us hope that the arrangements will work effectivelybut there must be a cost. Training must be required and channels of communication must be opened up. No doubt, that will be complicatedI mention this only in passingby the different legal systems in England and Scotland, which may well be relevant.

Oliver Heald: But is not the dilemma that my right hon. Friend faces, and we all face, that it is vital that we have a proper structure for civil contingencies? The structure in part 1 cannot work without new clause 11, and given the urgency of the situation and the need for the action, surely it has to go ahead?

Eric Forth: That may or may not be the case. I must confess that the proposition that something has to go ahead always worries me, because I like to know a little more about the facilitation or underpinning involved in doing so.

Richard Allan: I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's general point about the overall cost of the legislation, about which we, too, have expressed concern, but I suggest to him that the new clause will be a cost-saving measure. Under the Bill as originally drafted, the problem was that no Scottish local authority could be empowered to give information to a body such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which would have had to go and get it for itself. Although we have concerns about the general scope of the Bill, I think that the new clause will be a net cost saver.

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, as far as it goes. Empowerment is a wonderful worda very Liberal Democrat wordthat sounds good when one says it, but that is not what new clause 11 is about. It is about permittinga good old-fashioned word that is far better than empowermentor requiring. I am focusing on the requiring part because that usually means additional effort, which usually means additional cost. Empowerment or permitting could be cost-free, I supposealthough even then, it is conceivable that additional costs might be involved in empowering a body that desperately wants to share information with another, but is otherwise unable to do so.
	Let us consider the matter from a different angle. The other day, we heard that the new Home Office headquarters that is rising magnificently before our eyes in Marsham street is no longer big enough because the number of Home Office bureaucrats has increased so much over the past few years that that brand-new, state-of-the-art building, which is not yet completed, cannot house them all.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to the new clause under discussion.

Eric Forth: I was about to suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that perhaps the Home Office could second some of its bureaucrats to the authorities that will be required under new clause 11 to produce collaboration, co-operation and communication. Having probed a little on the surface the problems that could arise from the new clause, I am trying, in my usual way, to be helpful. Instead of putting the cost burden on to these hapless category 1 and category 2 responders, why does not the Home Office release, on secondment or permanently, some of its burgeoning numbers of bureaucrats to assist in the process that new clause 11 requires of those responders? That is an idea to conjure with. Without going into what on earth they are all doing and why they will not fit into the new buildingthat is a matter for another occasion, Madam Deputy Speakerit gives one pause for thought.
	All in all, I find this rather unsatisfactory. Fine words and fine aspirations give us all pleasure, but surely we are here to satisfy ourselves, on behalf of the taxpayer, that what is being done is proper and appropriate, of reasonable cost, and justified in terms of burdens on the taxpayer. I should have thought that all those things normally go together. Frankly, I am rather shocked to find that the Bill has reached this advanced stage without our being given any idea whatsoever of what its true cost will be. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy helpfully pointed out, even the much vaunted pre-legislative scrutiny process did not elicit that information. Throughout the pre-legislative process and the legislative processin Standing Committee and, now, on Reportwe have been unable to extract from the Government any idea of the likely additional cost to the taxpayer.
	It may not only be the taxpayer but the consumer, because the category 2 responders include utilities, transport and so on. One would imagine that, unless the Government were going to give them some sort of grantI very much doubt thatthe burden was likely to fall on the consumer, who is one and the same as the taxpayer. The costs may therefore come under a different, more stealthy heading.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman once again strays rather wide of the new clause. Discussion of the Bill's overall provisions, including cost, may be raised on Third Reading.

Eric Forth: I am always delighted to follow your guidance, Madame Deputy Speaker. I like to keep some ammunition for laterI do not like to use it all at once. Given that many groups of amendments remain to be considered and that we have some four hours in which to do that, I will follow your guidance. I hope that the Minister can help us with some of the questions that I have asked. I am sure that we all look forward to probing much more deeply into these matters as our proceedings continue.

Hazel Blears: I was about to say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that there was a danger of a little too much consensus, so I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has brought us down to earth with a bump.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked about the way in which, for example, hospital authorities might collaborate across borders. I am sure that he knows that well established mutual aid arrangements already exist everywhere in the United Kingdom. In the health service, there is often a great deal of cross-referral from primary to secondary and tertiary care. That is as true in the border areas as in the rest of the country. There are well established schemes between local responders. The new clause helps to clarify the position even better than the custom and practice that already existed. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) raised issues about Wales. Obviously, discussions have taken place with both devolved authorities to get the Bill right. It is important that the relationships between England and Scotland and England and Wales and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom, are appropriate and that people play their appropriate role. As I said, a fundamental part of the Bill is about coherence, consistency, collaboration and information sharing. There is a proposal to draw up a concordat with the National Assembly for Wales and with the Scottish Executive to set out the way in which that might work in practice. The hon. Gentleman's point about information sharing could properly be considered in that concordat. A proposal to amend the Bill at this stage is probably disproportionate. The issue that he properly raised can be tackled in regulations, guidance and the concordat between the relevant parties.
	The hon. Gentleman obviously knows that to have that communication between Her Majesty's Government and the National Assembly, whereby regulations are made that apply to bodies within the Assembly's jurisdiction, a Minister of the Crown has to seek the Assembly's consent. In other cases, in which a UK Minister legislates for Wales, consultation must take place between the two bodies. Clearly, there is a framework for dialogue and exchange of views. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that, provided those channels of communication are kept open and we have a proper concordat to which reference can be made openly and transparently, people will be assured that the Welsh position is properly protected.
	I take it that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not seek at this point to reopen the devolution settlement. Clearly, it is important that we get the right balance between the decisions that Her Majesty's Government make and those that are the proper province of the devolved Administrations. We have tried to achieve that in new clause 11 and amendments Nos. 82 to 89. We want to ensure that, where we have devolutionwe clearly have devolution, which was the will of the peopleScottish Ministers can take the necessary actions, Ministers in England and Wales can take the necessary actions and there is a proper meeting of minds and consent. It is not beyond our wit to work together. We must do that in different regions, even of this country. In many cases, there is a need for cross-regional collaboration and information sharing. We must also ensure that the plans mesh well together. It is right to do the same thing in Scotland and Wales.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the costs of collaboration. Often, the most cost-effective thing to do is to work together to share information. Insufficient collaboration or consistency can be extremely costly in financial and human terms. Indeed, I am sure that we would all express concern if different people were doing a series of different things that did not join up. This is about working smarter, and using our imagination to ensure that we get this absolutely right.
	Significant extra funds have been put into the civil defence grant in recent years, and before coming to this debate I asked for a couple of figures that might prove illuminating. In the past seven years, the grant has risen by 31 per cent., whereas in the last seven years of the previous Conservative Administration it fell by 42 per cent. I am not keen to make partisan points, but it is important for the House to have that information.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Lady accept that people are concerned that the grant has not increased since 2002, and that it is not set to increase because the Government's plan is to keep it at its present level? People are worried about how councils will do their workwith all the extra burdens, including the seven new duties imposed on them by the Billif they do not have the money.

Hazel Blears: I note that the hon. Gentleman is concentrating on this last year, as opposed to the previous years that I mentioned. He will know, however, that local authorities have always supplemented the civil defence grant because they see it as part of their responsibility to lead their communities and to take care of them. This has never been simply a ring-fenced grant to which local authorities make no contribution. Furthermore, the Bill deals with an organisational framework, rather than with the specific duties placed on authorities. Several Conservative Members suggested that we needed to work through the guidance and regulations. We are talking about events that are difficult to predict, so we need to work through what some of the costs might be.

Elfyn Llwyd: I mentioned earlier that about 200 responders had mentioned this issue. The Minister might say of local government, Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? However, when faced with a decision to cut either their social services budget head or the civil defence one, many local authorities cut the civil defence budget. It has been the Cinderella service in local government. If we are going to get local authorities up to speed and to change the culture by putting in place a proper civil defence structure, the resources will have to follow.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that this is an area of increasing salience, particularly in the light of the threats that we face in this very changed world environment. However, local government in general has had significant real-terms increases in its settlement, certainly over the past few years. He postulates an argument about decisions to make cuts in social services, education or civil defence, but local authorities have, for the first time in a long time, received significant increases in the grant available to them. They ought, therefore, to be able to take on these responsibilities. He will know from his own area that local government services are improving across the piece, whether in education, social services or housing. It is important that local authorities continue to be able to fund those services.
	I know that local government has concerns about these issues, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the 200 respondents who raised them with him. It is absolutely right that we should continue to talk to the Local Government Association and, when we see what the increased burdens might be, that we seek to address them. That will be a fundamental part of the spending review 2004 process.

Vincent Cable: Is it the Government's position that these new statutory obligations on local authorities will result in cost neutrality? Or will they result in increased costs, which the Government will have to look at new ways of funding?

Hazel Blears: Yes, we accept that extra pressures might well occur if we ask local authorities and other responders to work differently, to collaborate and plan together and to raise their games on civil contingencies, and we are in discussions with the Local Government Association to establish what those additional pressures might be. It would take a robust business case for the Government to acknowledge such additional pressures, which the spending review process would address. As I said to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), it is not a matter of making cuts in one department or another, because the issue must be considered in the context of the significant real-terms increases for local government as a whole.

Patrick Mercer: I have listened to the Minister's remarks about local authorities' preparations to deal with the Bill's strictures with interest. A number of emergency planning officers to whom I have spoken tell me that the civil defence grant will barely cover the exercises, to which we shall undoubtedly return, for this financial year. Unless they are allowed to conduct the exercises, they cannot implement suitable measures when an emergency occurs. They are even more concerned that next year's civil defence grant is being frozen at this year's level, which is, in other words, a real-terms cut. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that she has heard similar views and that she is addressing them in a practical way, rather than a theoretical way.

Hazel Blears: I have already indicated that discussions are ongoing between representatives of those organisations, and I am sure that the excellent exercises that are taking place with local government and a range of responders will continue. Local government is keen to make sure that communities are properly protected and that preparations are made, and I therefore have no doubt that those discussions will continue. We will seek to address those pressures where the business case is robust and where the increase is identifiable.
	I am sure that the figures for 200203 were repeatedly quoted to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) in Committee: an extra 330 million provided for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office to examine civil contingencies; an extra 56 million provided for the new dimension project in the fire service; an extra 85 million provided for the Department of Health to consider chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear issues; and an extra 84 million provided for the police. I am not saying that those figures are the be all and end all of financial pressures, but it is hard to make the case that the Government have been slow to provide extra resources, given that in the past seven years of this Administration funding for civil contingencies has increased by 31 per cent., compared with the 42 per cent. decrease in the last seven years of previous Administration.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister discusses increased funding, but she does not mention local authoritiesin her earlier comments, she mentioned the Government's generosity to local authorities. It is important to make the point that funding for local authorities to cover civil contingencies has increased from 14.4 million to 19 million. Starting from a low base, funding has gone from peanuts to that paltry figure, and it must be increased yet again.

Hazel Blears: I hope that this debate does not turn into an auction, because I shall be forced to refer to the shadow Chancellor's plans to cut public expenditure, and I do not want to enter that territory today. Whether the shadow Chancellor plans to cut 18 billion or 180 billion

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed some latitude in the debate, but we should return to new clause 11.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I addressed the issues relating to funding raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Richard Shepherd: On the cost to local authorities, Mr. Boyd, the emergency planning officer in Walsall, attends briefing sessions for the emergency services on CBRN issues and terrorist attack, and is concerned that the emergency services have received more than 100 million to spend on decontamination equipment and training for its officers, but the local authority has received nothing. The emergency services expect local authority staff to attend the scene of such an incident.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. New clause 11 concerns cross-border collaboration with Scotland, and I ask hon. Members to refer to it in their deliberations.

Hazel Blears: I do not have anything to add, except to commend new clause 11 and amendments Nos. 82 to 89 to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	  
	Emergency Volunteer Reserve

'(1)   There shall be an Emergency Volunteer Reserve.
	(2)   The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument make provision in respect of the Emergency Volunteer Reserve.'.[Patrick Mercer.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in page 3, line 8 [Clause 2], at end insert
	'(h)   consult with humanitarian or voluntary organisations through the development of plans maintained under paragraphs (c) and (d) to such extent and in such manner as a person or body listed in Part 1 or Part 2 of Schedule 1 shall think fit.'.
	No. 12, in line 36, after 'consult', insert
	'with any humanitarian or voluntary organisations or'.
	No. 13, in line 41, after 'collaboration', insert
	'with any humanitarian or voluntary organisations or any other specified person or body or class of person or body'.
	No. 14, in line 44, after 'delegation', insert
	'to any specified person or body or class of person or body including any humanitarian or voluntary organisations'.
	No. 15, in line 46, at end add
	'or with any humanitarian or voluntary organisations'.
	No. 16, in page 4, line 5, after 'Schedule', insert
	'or to any humanitarian or voluntary organisations'.
	No. 17, in line 7, after 'body', insert
	'(including any humanitarian or voluntary organisations)'.
	No. 76, in page 5, line 5 [Clause 4], leave out 'business' and insert 'organisation'.
	No. 77, in line 8, after 'commercial', insert 'voluntary and community'.
	No. 18, in line 8, after 'activities', insert 'or community activities'.
	No. 19, in line 20, at end add
	'save that a charge may not be made to any organisation carrying out community activities'.
	No. 20, in page 11, line 23 [Clause 17], at end add
	   'community activities means activities in fulfilment of any charitable, benevolent, or philanthropic purpose,
	   humanitarian or voluntary organisations means any voluntary organisation, charity or other body which contributes to civil protection arrangements on an international, national, or local basis which is identified as such by any person or body listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1.'.

Patrick Mercer: I am sorry that the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not here, although I am sure he is absent for an extremely happy reason. The new clause and amendments Nos. 76 and 77, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), go to the heart of the Bill.
	It is fair to say that the Government were a trifle surprised in Committee by some approaches taken by Conservative Front Benchers not to the powers and theory of the Bill, but to the practicalities of delivering it. The new clause and the amendments address the muscle and the manpower that will be required physically to put those powers into practice in horrible events such as those for which we are preparing. I hope, therefore, to range not too far and wide, but essentially over the matter of a volunteer reserve and the involvement of the multifarious voluntary organisations, which I have no doubt we will depend on heavily in the event of a disaster.
	The Government have rightly identified the problemit could be anything from a natural disaster to something horrendous such as a dirty bomb inspired by terrorists that kills perhaps thousands of people. They have also rightly identified the fact that powers need to be put in place to deal with that. We have a Bill before us, and Conservative Members are happy to support many parts of it. We have tried to take a non-partisan and largely supportive approach, but there seems to be a lacuna between the problem and the powers. I have already identified the problem; it is one of delivery.
	I do not believe that the Government have thought about the practicalities of the problem in any detail. There is no doubt that local authorities will be empowered to deal with the problem in theory; there is no doubt that category 1 and category 2 responders will be identified and told what powers they have to deal with events on the ground. However, who, physically, will do that?
	A cursory glance at the emergency services in any of our constituencies would show the Government how parlous the preparations are. Let us take the example of my constituency of Newark, which, I trust, is unlikely to be attacked by terrorists. It was clear six weeks ago when I spoke to Newark fire service that not a single member of it had received any training whatever to deal with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear emergencies. It is clear that the pumps we have available in Newark could respond for only a few hours in the event of an intensive incident.
	Ten pumps must accompany one of the immediate response vehicles that the Government have put in place to whichever part of the country is the scene of an emergency. There is no doubt that we would quickly run short of the manpower required to take either the fire, police or ambulance service through a sustained emergency. There is no doubt that, very quickly, it would be impossible to replace policementhey would be exhausted, particularly if they were wearing protective clothing and trying to operate despite all the difficulties of a CBRN attack.
	I do not know whether the Minister has ever operated under such conditions, but I can assure her that wearing one of those suits is extremely difficult and that trained and well prepared staff, no matter how many of them the Government believe they have prepared, will quickly become degraded and impossible to replace.
	What have the Government done about providing an additional work force? We are told glibly that the 60,000 or 70,000 regular Army, Navy and Air Force personnel in this country at any one time, depending on emergencies, would be called on to help, particularly in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attack. The fact remains that there are no standing plans to use our regular forces, despite the fact that every man Jack and woman Jill has received this sort of training.

Eric Forth: As my hon. Friend develops that theme, does he not agree that the physical disposition of those highly trained personnel is inadequate to cover the entire country? Given that such events, by their very nature, could occur anywhere, even were we lucky enough to have a centre of trained military excellence, most of the country, sadly, would not be within easy reach of those excellent people should the worst happen.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. As usual, he is absolutely right. In fairness, that is probably why the MOD has not tried to tie down its regular forces in great detail. Due to the overstretch of our regular forces, the fact remains that an indeterminate number will be available in this country should an incident occur.
	What have the Government done to increase the availability of manpower? Curiously, just before the Committee stage of this Bill was completed, the civil contingencies reaction force, more than two years after the events of 11 September, was finally declared operationally ready. A cursory glance at the CCRF, however, shows that it was far from ready. Interestingly, I note that we spoke on 28 January about this very event, on exactly the same day that Private Kitulagoda of the Rifle Volunteers was killed in action. He was indeed a member of the civil contingencies reaction force. He came from Devon, and his duties were to respond to an incident in the area of Plymouth or Exeter, and yet he was killed in Kabul by a British-born suicide bomber. If the Government have raised that very modest number of territorials and reservists specifically for those duties, why on earth are they posting those soldiers, sailors and airmen overseas? Why are they concentrated on Basra and Baghdad rather than Bermondsey or other areas where they may be necessary? The answer is simply that the Government have made no coherent plan to provide additional manpower in the event of this sort of incident.
	That is why we propose the raising of an emergency volunteer reserve[Interruption.] In response to the sedentary intervention from the Government Front Bench, the intention is not to raise a Home Guard, but to contribute to the British Red Cross or other organisations that already exist. The plan that I suggest is simple: those who have a desire to volunteer and who have skills to contribute to the country should be allowed to do so. A category A responder might be an off-duty surgeon, who would take the training necessary to bring him or her up to scratch, and put himself or herself on a register of willingness or availability, and in the event of an incident occurring, that surgeon might come forward either to reinforce medical staff, or to take the place of those who are exhausted. At the other end of the spectrum, a category F responder might be someone without a specific skill, and without much time to spare, but who would be available, on being contacted by text message, to help the police or other emergency services in the event of an emergency.
	I do not understand why the Government did not think the scheme through more carefully. It would be cheap and relatively easy to impose. Training would be practical. Above all, it would mop up the huge reserve of volunteers who I have no doubt would be ready and willing to come forward in these circumstances.

Richard Allan: When we discussed this in Committee, there was some concern about the overlap between the hon. Gentleman's proposal and the existing voluntary sector organisations. Now his thoughts seem to have evolved. Can he confirm that he is talking about co-ordinating bodies such as the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance rather than about some substitute for them?

Patrick Mercer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am interested to note from the mayoral election plans that the Liberal Democrats have taken not just the idea but the term emergency volunteer reserve and decided to bend it to their own purposesshocking behaviour!
	Let me answer that perspicacious intervention by reading something about what happened in Madrid.
	Within minutes of the bomb explosions on the terrible morning of 11th March, Spanish Red Cross volunteers were on the scene. Over the following 24 hours and beyond . . . 900 volunteers provided medical care, psychological support and handled enquiries from the public. 52 ambulances, 26 transport vehicles and mobile blood collection units run by the Spanish Red Cross worked in close collaboration with the statutory services. Volunteers supported many bereaved families . . . 61 requests for information on missing persons were received from abroad and dealt with through the International Red Cross Message and Tracing service.
	Here is the rub:
	The Spanish Red Cross was able to make such an exemplary response to this tragedy because in Spain the voluntary sector has a formal role in the civil protection framework. The Spanish voluntary sector plays an integral part in emergency planning and is designated to be involved in rescue, medical care, information and communication, and emotional support.
	The Joint Committee on the draft Bill recommended that
	a statutory duty be placed upon Category 1 Responders to consult with and involve relevant voluntary organisations in civil contingency planning.
	It also recommended that
	Category 1 Responders be given flexibility to identify and consult with the most relevant voluntary organisations in their area.
	Yet those points were not included in the Bill.
	We propose that we should raisein addition to the voluntary organisations that already existan emergency volunteer reserve that would overlap and interlock with the existing voluntary organisations, and that the voluntary organisations should be brought much more closely into line with the standing blue-light services. That would bring about much more integration of training, approach and operational procedure.
	I have no doubt that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members will want to deal with amendments Nos. 11 to 17 and 18 to 20. I want to say a little more about amendments Nos. 76 and 77, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and me. We feel that we should recognise all the good work of organisations such as the British Red Cross, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Salvation Army and St. John Ambulance.
	We should recognise the potential of these organisations, and the fact that if we were to use them in a much more sensible, coherent and thoughtful way, although the Government would not get a service for nothing, they would get a wholly trained, thoughtful and thoroughly well-motivated organisation for an absolute pittance. If that were integrated with the emergency volunteer reserve that I outlined, the Government would not be in their current difficult position.

Helen Jackson: Amendments Nos. 11 to 17 and the associated ones relate to volunteers and to the realm of the voluntary sector. When considering them, we should remember that the Bill is entitled the Civil Contingencies Bill. As we all know, a disasteran emergencyaffects the whole of society and the surrounding civil society, so the response to, and planning for, emergencies and disasters must involve the whole of civil society as well.
	The amendments, which, as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said, have been backed by the British Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Salvation Army, basically reflect the view that the voluntary sector's contribution to caring for the victims of emergencies and disasters in particular should be properly recognised and made explicit in the Bill. They have been introduced on Report on the basis that the explicit involvement of the voluntary sector in what the Government are seeking to do in responding to an emergency is not nearly explicit enough. As the Government will doubtless recognise, the Joint Committee, which is acting as consultee on the draft Bill, recommended that representatives from the voluntary sector be included as consultees at both the planning and response stages.
	I should point out to the Minister that the Government's record in the voluntary sector is excellent. The Chancellor, the Prime Minister and leading members of the Government frequently refer in their speeches to the partnership that the Government are trying to build with the voluntary sector. Therefore, the voluntary sector's response, which shows that it is puzzled and disappointed that the Government have not involved it in a more explicit way, also reflects my feeling.
	I hark back to 15 April 1989 and this country's greatest sporting disaster, which occurred in Hillsborough stadium. At that time, I was not the Member of Parliament for the area, but I was a member of the city council and I represented the area and the people who lived in it. I am aware that that ghastly disaster was felt for many yearsindeed, it is still remembered yearly on 15 Aprilnot just by the statutory services but by the whole community, who were involved in responding it. The entire community helped the voluntary servicesthe Red Cross and St. John Ambulanceby doing what they could.
	None of the residents of the Hillsborough area of Sheffield will ever forget that day of sirens going on and on and on, for hour upon hour upon hour, as the vehicles ferried people to hospital. They will never forget the continuing radio appeals for volunteers with skills of any nature to help. They will never forget, because it was, I suspect, one of the first disasters to be covered minute by minute on live television. It was a Saturday afternoon in April, when many people were at home watching sport on TV. They did not expect to see the disaster that unfolded.
	Not only organisations and a volunteer force came to help; the local clergy, the league of friends from the hospital, individual doctors and cleaning staff who worked in the football stadium did so too. Those in public housing and other individuals in the area offered accommodation. The answer is not to blame people, but to recognise that all volunteers and voluntary organisations are involved immediately when an emergency arises. It is only right that they should be brought in at the pre-planning stage and for the delivery on the ground, because they are the people who will make a difference in the event of a disaster.
	Given the Government's record on the voluntary sector, they should recognise its skills, experience and potential in this context. Government recognition of the sector's potential will improve the chances of voluntary sector organisations being able to deliver the training that is necessary to keep up to date, and being organisations on which we can rely in every city.

Oliver Heald: I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that the threats that we face and the events that we may have to face are changing quite quickly, so proper consultation and perhaps an overarching body of the sort that we suggest is a good idea? It will mean that everyone can keep up to speed.

Helen Jackson: I am grateful for that intervention. I agree that the threats are changing, but let us bear in mind the characteristic that a civil emergency is probably not expected. No one could have predicted that an aeroplane would explode and kill 200-plus people in Lockerbie, for example. These things cannot be totally planned for. There is no textbook emergency. That is one of the problems, whether it is a fire at King's Cross, a football disaster at Hillsborough, the Lockerbie disaster, or the terrorist incident in Madrid. Therefore, there can be no definitive Government planning blueprint saying that we have got it all sorted out and we will know exactly what to do. It will not happen like that, although there are always common factors: injury, stress, trauma and shock, and the need for comfort, reassurance and to deal with people who feel bewildered.
	The other common factor that the amendments deal with is that, almost universally in our country, there is a huge and immediate willingness to help among everyone who knows about the situation.
	That must be recognised and should form part of how we deal with this opportunity to update legislation from the 1920s. Perhaps we can now learn from experience gained between 1920 and the present: we should be proud of and treasure the immediate response of volunteers and voluntary organisations coming together.
	One recent event affected us all in the House: the reaction of the people of Spain to the ghastly events in Madrid. I recall how moved I wasI believe every hon. Member felt the sameto see them coming together on the streets to make it clear that they were the people of Spain and that they condemned the tragic events.
	I feel strongly that the involvement of the voluntary sector in dealing with disasters should be properly recognised by the Government, both in pre-planning and in operational guidance attached to the Bill. The Government should take this opportunity to strengthen their partnership with the voluntary sector by amending the Bill along the lines suggested in this group of amendments.

Richard Allan: I was pleased to offer my support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). We examined the issue in Committee, but it remained, to a degree, unresolved.
	Unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny, though I recognise that it does not cure all known ills. The consultation process brought to light different views from the voluntary sector. I understand why that created a difficulty and why, given the broad range of voluntary sector organisations, it would not be appropriate to place all of them in the category of those required to respond on a statutory basis.
	I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough that some reference should be made in the framework of primary legislation to voluntary organisations. She has produced some good amendments in an attempt to achieve that. Rather than making all voluntary organisations statutory responders, she would amend clause 2(5) so that the regulations imposed on the statutory bodiesthe local authoritiesincluded a requirement that local humanitarian or voluntary organisations be involved. That is a wholly appropriate way of tackling the problem, which overcomes the Government's objections to making all voluntary sector organisations potentially subject to statutory duty. The statutory duty to consult would be placed on the local authority, and could be exercised in a common-sense manner. The hon. Lady has found an appropriate way of framing the provision. When the Minister responds, she might say that the regulations could, in any case, require local authorities to consult local voluntary and humanitarian organisations. That may well be the Government's intention, but it would be that much stronger if it were built into the Bill.
	I understand the concerns of organisations such as the Red Cross, St. John Ambulance and the Salvation Army, which provide core services. The voluntary sector now provides essential services in many areas. Bodies such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children provides core child protection services in my city of Sheffield. If such organisations are in negotiation with local authorities for planning purposes, they will want to have some statutory authority and strength. It would therefore be appropriate to amend the Bill, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough suggests.
	We debated clause 4 in Committee; I am not at all persuaded that it will deliver anything positive in the context of the Bill. It deals with the provision of advice and assistance to business, and the amendments are designed to extend that to include humanitarian or voluntary organisations. If the provisions in clause 4 are to be in the Bill, the amendments are appropriate, given that many of those organisations will be providing mainstream services. If the local authority is to provide continuity, planning and advice to anyone, it should provide that to the bodies that are likely to be assisting during a period of crisis or emergency.
	My major concern about the business side of clause 4 is that it is hard to see how, if it were on a cost-recovery basis, anyone would be likely to sign up to it.
	I find it difficult to envisage how it will work from a business point of view. The amendments suggest that humanitarian organisations should not be charged for the advice.
	I hope that the Minister can offer us more than we have had heretofore about the requirements that central Government will place on local authorities to engage with voluntary sector and humanitarian organisations. The Bill could be strengthened in that area.

Julian Brazier: I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on these excellent amendments, which address a very important and, indeed, rather grave subject. I also support what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) said in such an articulate fashion.
	New clause 1 concerns the central issue of setting up a new civilian reserve, while most of the associated amendments concern making better use of our splendid voluntary organisations, such as the British Red Cross, the WRVS and others that have written to us to say that they feel rather left out of the planning process in the Bill. We are blessed with a very strong voluntary sector. As well as the organisations that I have mentioned, let us not forget St. John Ambulance and neighbourhood watch schemes. I was the co-ordinator of one of the first such schemes, and we successfully reduced crime. What a good point of contact they are for disseminating these plans.
	As my hon. Friend said so effectively, we simply do not have enough manpower so we have to rely on the wider community. That reliance must be based on structures that are in place and properly rehearsed before the event, and not on ad hockery.
	We saw with the unhappy incident in the Chamber last Wednesday that we as MPs had not been briefed on or rehearsed the steps that we should take. Had it been a biological attack, we should all have stayed in the Chamber until we had been decontaminated. Had it been a chemical attack, we should all have got out very quickly. Who distinguishes, and how the message is relayed quickly, are matters that present serious problems for the House authorities. Those problems need to tackled in advance. There may have been a great deal of planning behind the scenes, but at the level where it mattersthe point on the ground where the incident occurredthe message had not got home, and, above all, the steps had not been rehearsed.
	It is difficult to exaggerate the thinness of the official structures that we have in place for civil contingencies. My hon. Friend gave the touching example of the Territorial soldier, nominally a member of the civil contingency reaction force, who was killed on duty in Afghanistanillustrating how overstretched that structure is. It is not only overstretched but completely inadequately structured. I have twice challenged Defence MinistersI challenge the Minister again todayto explain how the 14 organisations can organise anything, when they are based on the headquarters of the 14 TA infantry battalions, which were stripped to an absolute skeleton in the most recent defence review. Although intelligence officers have finally been put back into them, there is still no intelligence cell to handle incoming information, the signals set-up is tiny and the whole structure is too woefully small to command anything. Those concerns were raised by TA officers who are very anxious to do this job and do it well.

Oliver Heald: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is thought that, of the civil contingency reaction force of 6,000, about halfor certainly between a third and a halfare overseas?

Julian Brazier: I cannot entirely endorse my hon. Friend's figures, but a significant number are overseas and the organisation is anyway well below strength. I support the concept, but the organisation is far too small and under-resourced. The essence of having a surge capability to deal with an emergency is the ability to expand provision. If most of the people who form part of that surge capability are being used abroad, there is little surge capability available. The proposal for a new civilian force as a supplement would go a long way towards bridging the gap.
	The ideas behind the other amendments in the group for a much closer relationship with all the vital voluntary organisations are also essential. The role played by the Red Cross in Madrid has been mentioned, but the point is that exercises are needed. I know of one small voluntary organisation that already does some of the work necessary. I have not spoken about it in the House before, as far as I remember, although my wife is a serving member. It is the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry, whose colonel-in-chief is the Princess Royal.
	The organisation is only 100-strong, so its ability to make a difference is limited, although it punches well above its weight. It had a gallant record in both world wars and members were covered in decorations, but its role for more than a generation has been to support the City of London police force. For three days after the Moorgate tube disaster, it manned all the communications for the hospitals treating the injured. It was called out during the great storm of 1987 and, for the subsequent IRA bombing in the City, it again manned the communications so that relatives could find out where their loved ones had been taken. It is a small organisation that does an excellent job, and it is worth mentioning in this debate.
	The truth is that we need all the voluntary organisations. They deserve silver-tongued praise in this House, but they should also be part of the planning for the frightful emergencies that may happen at any time. Colleagues would be surprised if I did not mention that I still hope to persuade the Government to support my Promotion of Volunteering Bill. I already have 150 signatures to my early-day motion from Members from all parties, broadly pro rata to their representation in the House. Surely a debate such as this should convince us that it is wrong that volunteers who sign up to organisations that may already do exercises on these potential dangers should face the same risk of negligence suits in the civil courts as, for example, a commercial company would.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Brazier: I was about to finish, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend will not have reason to regret his decision. He is speaking eloquently to new clause 1, and I hope that it will warm the cockles of his heart to learn that only this morning I received three letters from constituents vigorously urging me to support his Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Laudable as that Bill may be, we are discussing new clause 1 of the Civil Contingencies Bill.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, although the organisation that would be set up under new clause 1 would face the risk that my Bill attempts to remove. I might say that it is always a wise decision to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), not only because I work for him in another capacity but because he invariably hits the nail on the head. Colleagues from both sides of the House are writing to me and telephoning my office because their constituents have contacted them.
	The amendments in this group go to the heart of the way in which we should tackle these emergencies. It is no good just recognising the excellent work done by voluntary organisations. We need to bring them into the planning framework and introduce a new reserve to assist them. I urge the House to support all the amendments.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said and thought that the contribution of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) was very sensible. If we are serious about involving the voluntary sectoras we would have to in the circumstances that we are discussingwe should give it statutory recognition for its important work and include it in planning. We should not forget that many of those who gave evidence to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee were from the voluntary sector.
	I cannot understand how the Minister can pay warm tribute to the voluntary sector but also cut it out of the scene. It does not make sense and I hope that the Government will think again, even at this late stage. The amendments are sensible and would improve the Bill. I recall that, in Committee, we discussed the civil contingency reaction force and the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said that the Government hoped to establish a complement of 7,000 but that at the timetowards the end of Januaryonly 5,000 had been trained and accredited. Can the Minister tell us whether that figure has improved? We should not forget, of course, that many of those people are already serving in other theatres.
	The amendments would be useful and provide an element lacking in the Bill. I see no reason why such a volunteer force could not complement other organisations involved in this sphere.

Jonathan Djanogly: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said in his informed and important speech on the need to use the full resources of the nation, rather than just the full resources of the state, when it comes to national emergencies. I fully support the suggestion of an emergency volunteer reserve to make full use of the pool of talent that we have. However, I was spurred to speak this afternoon by a letter from the British Red Cross that I am sure that other hon. Members have received and that also bears the names of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Salvation Army and St. John Ambulance. It makes several significant points that made me realise the importance of the amendments.
	The letter refers to the explosion in the plastics factory in Glasgow on 11 May, where, for more than three days, Salvation Army and Red Cross volunteers and staff provided emotional support and first aid at a reception centre set up in Maryhill community hall. It refers to the Morecambe bay cockle pickers tragedy, where the survivors were comforted by Red Cross volunteers who provided first aid treatment, blankets and clothing. The letter points out that, within 50 minutes of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, St. John Ambulance had 32 volunteers and 11 ambulances on the scene and transported 22 people to hospital. For the following seven days, volunteers provided a 24-hour mobile treatment centre for workers at the site. The organisations were also involved after the terrible fire at the Yarlswood centre for asylum seekers in Bedfordshire, which is close to my constituency. The WRVS played an important role in providing food and comfort to the survivors andimportantlyto the fire workers and other emergency service personnel involved. The importance of the voluntary sector is not only the help provided to victims but the assistance to primary emergency workers. In that way, the volunteers become part of the primary team.

Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for international disasters and other such scenarios, we are keen to include NGOs such as the Red Cross in the planning phase? Why are the Government so willing to make use of voluntary organisations for the delivery of international relief, but not when there is a crying need for them in this country?

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall refer later to the experience in Madrid and try to answer his question, although of course I do not have one, so it might be for the Minister to address his concerns when she replies.
	The Red Cross points out:
	In situations like these, volunteers help to absorb the impact a disaster makes on victims and their families. They are local, community-minded, ordinary people who give aid in extraordinary circumstances. Local authorities and emergency services turn to such volunteers knowing that they can provide comfort, emotional and practical support when most needed, yet there is no formal mechanism to involve the voluntary sector in the planning for emergency response . . . The Civil Contingencies Bill has presented the ideal opportunity to formalise arrangements by specifically including the voluntary sector in the legislation.
	As for the international experience, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned what happened in Madrid, which very much involved the Red Cross. The British Red Cross says:
	Within minutes of the bomb explosions on the terrible morning of 11th March, Spanish Red Cross volunteers were on the scene. Over the following 24 hours and beyond . . . 900 volunteers provided medical care, psychological support, and handled enquiries from the public.
	52 ambulances, 26 transport vehicles and mobile blood collection units run by the Spanish Red Cross worked in close collaboration with the statutory services.
	Volunteers supported many bereaved families as they went to identify the bodies of their loved ones.
	61 requests for information on missing persons were received from abroad and dealt with through the International Red Cross Message and Tracing service.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned the massive input that the Spanish Red Cross had in the aftermath of the disaster in Madrid. The British Red Cross goes further and says:
	The Spanish Red Cross was able to make such an exemplary response to this tragedy because in Spain the voluntary sector has a formal role in the civil protection framework. The Spanish voluntary sector plays an integral part in emergency planning and is designated to be involved in rescue, medical care, information and communication, and emotional support.
	As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) rightly said, the support provided in such a situation goes beyond emotional support, making tea and giving comfort. Voluntary organisations have many specialist skills. The British Red Cross gives the following examples:
	Information services, clothing and shelter, first aid and medical care, comforting and befriending of individuals affected, staffing rest and reception centres, support to hospitals, support to ambulance services, search and rescue, transport services, message and tracing services for those who have lost contact with loved ones in an emergency overseas, radio communications, faith and cultural support and awareness.
	That is an enormous list of invaluable services that go together to make the complete emergency service that the state could never provide acting on its own.
	In summary, the British Red Cross says:
	As key providers of emotional and practical support to victims and their families, the voluntary sector is united in calling for formal, explicit recognition of the contribution of the voluntary sector in emergency planning and response on the face of the Civil Contingencies Bill.
	A duty should be placed on statutory authorities to involve the voluntary sector fully in emergency planning and response.
	An acknowledgement of the voluntary sector's contribution will formalise an already active response.
	Without the involvement of the voluntary sector in emergency planning and response, the response to the human dimension of an emergency may be less effectively addressed.
	Why have the Government marginalised the contribution of the voluntary sector in the Bill? It cannot be on the ground of cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark said earlier. It cannot be on the ground of the voluntary sector's ability, which is well proven. It cannot be in terms of its commitment, which is exemplary.

Julian Brazier: Absolutely.

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend made that clear in his own speech.
	One wonders what the reason is. Could it be the Labour party's long-held disdain for public services being performed outside the public sector? If so, that is a sorry set of circumstances. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of her position and fully support the new clause and the amendments.

David Heath: I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Whatever the Government's intentionsI am sure that there was never any intention to exclude the voluntary organisations, which do such a wonderful job in providing practical and emotional support when there is a disasteran explicit recognition of that role would be enormously helpful. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain further how she sees the relationship between the statutory and the voluntary sector in this context.
	I urge the hon. Lady to accept the proposal, because an explicit reference in the Bill would be in the interests of all concerned, in terms not only of planning but of understanding capabilities and recognising what resources may be available. It would also acknowledge the essential role played, albeit often at a slightly lower level than the first responders who arrive at the scene, in providing support not only to victims and their families and others affected but, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, to the people who have to deal at first hand with the emergency, and looking after their emotional and practical well-being, which is equally important.
	The point that I want to raise is slightly different and I would be interested to hear from the hon. Member for Newark whether it is encompassed in his proposal. I welcome the fact that his proposal has been developed since the Bill was in Committee, because there was a concern that it might lead to two parallel organisationsthe voluntary sector as already established and what he proposed. It is now clear that his proposal would integrate existing structures.
	I am concerned about maintaining a register of professionals in a variety of fields who can be deployed at short notice in case of a civil contingency. We are not terribly good at that in this country. We are good at getting our emergency services on the scene and doing the job, but we sometimes then need more members of the caring, medical and surgical professions to be available, simply because of the scale of the emergency and we are not very good at knowing where those individuals are.
	I am talking about people who do not have commitments within their own hospital or medical environment, but who could be used in a particular region or situation to provide support. For example, there are chronic emergencies, such as foot and mouth, as well as acute emergencies. During the outbreak, I had colleagues and friends in the farming community in my area who were experienced veterinary surgeons but were not, for one reason or another, in practice. They volunteered their services either to go in and identify potential infection, or to replace those who were doing that, and were therefore unable to do their normal work. Those offers of support met no response whatever from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
	That was a scandalous and avoidable waste of professional resources. A similar situation could arise in, for instance, the nursing profession. There is not a surplus of trained theatre or accident and emergency nurses, so we cannot afford to lose people who have left the profession but retain the necessary skills to help in an emergency.
	Either as a result of the proposal of the hon. Member for Newark to establish a volunteer reserve that identifies professionals in the same way that people with medical training are retained as a distinct category within the military reserve list, or as the result of Government action that the Minister may tell us about in her reply, we should identify professionals who are willing to provide their services, can be easily contacted and, most importantly, are available at short notice to drop whatever they are doing to help in an emergency. People are willing to use their skills and professional abilities, but they need a mechanism to enable them to reach the right place at the right time.

Desmond Swayne: If such an emergency arose in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or, indeed, mine, the primary response would probably be made by firemen, who are effectively volunteers retained for precisely that purpose. The principle is acceptable and works now, so it is a mystery why it should not work in the scenario envisaged in the Bill.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. Retained firefighters do a wonderful job in rural constituencies such as ours and I have long argued that we should have retained police officers to provide a presence in rural areas, but that is to depart from the purpose of this debate.
	We have a reservoir of ability that we should be able to call on at short notice. The key is identifying before an emergency who those people are, how we can get hold of them, how they can be recruited to serve in an emergency and how they are to be organised. Those crucial elements are missing from the Bill and I hope that they will be included in the proposal of the hon. Member for Newark.

Eric Forth: I remain to be convinced by the argument for a volunteer reserve despite the avalanche of consensus in our debate. I am worried when my hon. Friends come to the House to propose yet another bureaucracy or, dare I say, a quango, which is to be interposed between, on the one hand, the existing bodies described in the Bill and the amendments and, on the other, the excellent voluntary bodies that they rightly praised. I am not entirely sure, despite the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), what added value the new organisation would provide, never mind its size, scope, scale, statutory powers and so on. New clause 1 is skeletal to say the least, and gives little or no indication of how the organisation would fit between existing statutory authorities and the voluntary sector. The proposition is therefore problematic.
	It would be much more valuable to explore the prospect of enhancing the role of existing bodies before we rush to create a new one. I often argue on a Friday, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you do Fridays along with me, that we should enforce the existing law more effectively instead of rushing to introduce new laws. The new clause is a parallel case. Before we rush to create yet another body or organisation, however virtuous it might appearthe words emergency volunteer reserve give it a patina of respectability or desirability, but that is not enoughwe are owed an explanation from my hon. Friend about how it will work. To be fair, he gave the example of a surgeon who wants to volunteer his expertise and experience to contribute to an emergency such as Hillsborough, which was deployed as an example by the Minister and which we all recall only too well. I immediately wondered where the surgeon would go to volunteer and to whom would he make himself known. Where would his skills be recorded, who would be the repository of that information, who would give him any additional training that he neededalthough he would have surgical skills, he might need retraining or reorientation to deal with emergenciesand by whom would he be co-ordinated? My first thought was that he would want to sign up with the Red Cross or St. John Ambulance, and a woman volunteer might want to sign up with the WRVS or another organisation well versed in responding to such contingencies. The Territorials, local authorities or other bodies mentioned in the Bill may be in a good position to accept to such volunteers.
	We should therefore pause before establishing the additional organisation for which my hon. Friend argued. I was worried when he used the words overlap and interlock, because such terms do not satisfactorily explain the complex relationship between existing statutory bodies and the voluntary sector. He argued that the emergency volunteer reserve would be included in the Bill if his new clause is accepted, thus giving it a statutory footing.

Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend has gone to the heart of the matter, but does he not accept that certain skills, such as those needed to deal with chemical, nuclear and biological warfare, are not widespread in voluntary organisations? One option is to increase the Territorial Army to its previous size, but some people may want to make a lesser commitment and make themselves available only for such civil defence work. There is therefore a case for establishing a new, lower-cost body instead of expanding the Territorial Army, for which I have argued for many years.

Eric Forth: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has reached for that solution, as he could have pressed for an enhancement of the Territorials on the one hand or the fire services on the other. The other day, I heard someone on the radio arguing, albeit in the context of the regrettable reoccurrence of the firefighters' dispute, that we ought to consider making prevention and the sort of response detailed in the Bill a role for firefighters, now that the incidence of fires in society has happily decreased a great deal. Why are we therefore not looking at, for example, adjusting or enhancing the role of the fire services, perhaps introducing an additional service, volunteers and so on, to fit neatly with their organisational responsibility? The role of such volunteers would be not unlike that of retained firefighters in rural areas, who have already been mentioned.
	In setting up the organisation proposed in the new clause, there is a danger that we will achieve confusion instead of co-ordination. As soon as we start to interpose new organisations between existing ones, unless we are extremely cleverfrankly, I am not confident of our skills as bureaucratswe risk causing more confusion because we are causing bodies to proliferate, even though we are giving them a comforting title and responsibilities for co-ordination and so on. The case for such organisations must therefore be made more fully before I am convinced that there is added value in my hon. Friend's new clause.

Helen Jackson: I have some sympathy with the drift of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I should have thought that when an emergency occurred, very few people got up in the morning thinking, Today is the day I will volunteer and do some extra work. The nature of emergencies is that volunteers come from wherever, whenever and in whatever form that particular emergency requires. It is crucial to keep that openness and flexibility in the arrangements for which local authorities or other bodies are responsible.

Eric Forth: The hon. Lady makes a good point, which raises the question of whether the creation of the EVR would attract people more than St. John Ambulance, the Red Cross or any of the other organisations mentioned in the debate already do. I am not convinced that they would flock to the EVR, without having offered themselves to one of the other bodies.
	The other considerationI make no apology for returning to the issueis the cost element, which again has been rather glossed over. Inevitably, if we set up a new body, it will involve some sort of cost. We already have the statutory organisationsthe firefighters and so onand the excellent voluntary organisations working as they do. The EVR is to be created and interposed somewhere between them. It is not clear to me how that would be funded or whether we are in danger of diverting resources that might otherwise be focused on those other organisations. Those resources might be siphoned off to deal with the bureaucracy that would accompany the setting up of a new body.
	All in all, I am somewhat sceptical about the approach. I can see what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark was trying to do, but I am far from being convinced that the new clause would deliver what is intended. I would rather look to an enhancement of the statutory bodies or to the volunteers to do more.
	I was slightly disappointed by the letter that was read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). Voluntary bodies seem to think that they are unloved and neglected unless they are mentioned in a Bill or an Act. That strikes me as odd. I should have thought that the Red Cross, of all bodies, had sufficient history, standing, respect and pride that the contribution it made was reward enough. If we have reached the stage where such bodies do not feel that they are sufficiently valued unless they are mentioned in an Act, that is somewhat disappointing. I find that the least convincing argument for writing additional words into the Bill.

Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. There may be a misunderstanding. The voluntary organisations are not seeking a mention of their own names in the Bill. They are concerned that there should be a statutory duty written into the Bill to consult them when the plans are drawn up. If they are to react effectively and be a full part of the process, it is essential that they should be consulted when the plans are being devised.

Eric Forth: That may well be an argument to support some of the amendments, but it is no part of the argument that I have been making so far. We in this place reach rather readily for mandatory consultation, and I believe that the word consultation has been more than a little devalued over the past few years, the more examples of it I see. The Post Office is currently consulting on the simultaneous closure of five post offices in my constituency. I do not have any great faith in that process and I doubt very much whether it will alter the outcome one bit.

Desmond Swayne: My right hon. Friend evidently has little faith in the ability of the state to deliver on many of its functions. Would it therefore not be agreeable to him to include the voluntary sector much more in deliberations such as we are discussing, precisely because it is rather better at many of those roles than the state turns out to be?

Eric Forth: What my hon. Friend says is true. The chemistry, so to speak, is extremely important. How far we are able to reflect that or enhance it in a Bill is another matter. I fear that setting up an EVR, which is the purpose of new clause 1, would not go very far in that direction, to put it mildly.

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend is demonstrating once again that, by comparison with him, Victor Meldrew is the epitome of optimism at all times. My right hon. Friend was generally clear in the thrust of his argument, but I am a little perplexed, as was my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I think, by my right hon. Friend's reference to the desirability of an enhancement of the existing statutory bodies. If that is his position, does it not clash somewhat with his general scepticism about the ability of the state to organise anything?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I was reflecting what I understand to be in the provisions of schedule 1. We have already had this debate and I would not want to return to itat least, not at this stage. I will return to it at the slightest provocation on some other occasion. In that little aside I was trying to reflect the fact that we are already laying additional responsibilities upon the local authorities and other bodies, so we could look in that direction rather than setting up yet another new organisation, which could cloud the relationships and the responsibilities of both the statutory and voluntary sectors.
	In short, we must hear quite a bit more from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark about exactly how the EVR would add value to the exercise that we are contemplating before I would be prepared to give it my support.

Mike Hancock: If they were honest, many hon. Member would have more than a little sympathy with the views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Somebody had to put the other side of the argument and to challenge us to define what we want to happen.
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) described the situation in Spain after the Madrid bombings. The difference is that in a country the size of Spain, the Red Cross is but one of three organisations that would claim to have such expertise. The authorities in Spain learned more than 20 years ago that they had to break down the plethora of organisations into designated, co-ordinated groups that could respond to certain dilemmas faced by the civil community.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right to say that if we accept the proposition tonight, which I hope we do, we have a responsibility to resource it properly, to ensure co-ordination and to ensure that we can cope with the disappointment factor. We have so many groups in this country that are actively engaged in responding to emergencies that some will be disappointed, because they cannot all be at the table as consultees. They will not all be part of the new system. We need expertisegroups that can come to the table already trained, with the knowledge of how to deliver what is required. Sometimes they will be told, Sorry, your expertise is not needed on this occasion.
	The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) will remember the early days on the Defence Committee when we discussed the matter. One of the issues that was raised time and again was the dilemma that the voluntary sector faced: when such organisations should come in, when they would be invited in and who would make that decision. Who would ensure that the communications were in place and co-ordinate the register not only of the well intentioned, but of the well informed and well trained who had the expertise that was needed?
	I have been involved in two major disaster areas in the past 25 years. On both occasions, I was amazed by the number of different United Kingdom groups that turned up. In one instance, they came a third of the way around the world. Some of them arrived when the operation to save the living was past all reasonable possibility of successyet they still came, and no one in this country was prepared to tell them not to do so; it was really sad.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a good case for better co-ordination of the voluntary groups. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), he seemed to imply that including the groups in the Bill would add to the confusion. The groups are asking not for personal aggrandisement or to have their names included in the Bill, but for a more co-ordinated approach. That is what the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) will provide.

Mike Hancock: I agree entirely, and that is what I was trying to say. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was challenging the House to recognise that if we accept the amendments, as I hope we will, we must ensure that the arrangements are properly resourced. It is not a question only of including the bodies as consultees; if we are to make use of them, we must give them the right equipment to allow proper communication and to ensure that they are properly protected. We must ensure that training is renewed and that people's expertise is not based on knowledge gained a decade or more ago. It is necessary to be a bit more sophisticated, and I had hoped that that was what we were trying to achieve.
	The challenge to the House and to the Government is clear: if the Government choose not to accept the amendments, what are they going to do about managing the obvious expertise that is out there in the wider community? How will we marshal that expertise? I believe that, at the end of the day, the Government's reluctance to agree to the proposals is more about the resources that would be needed than about the merit of the case for bringing in the organisations in the first place.

Desmond Swayne: I wish to use an analogy that might ring true for many hon. Members who are present: we are all members of voluntary organisations in that we are members of political parties. I am sure that many hon. Members will share my experience of the anger and frustration that can arise on our part and that of volunteers when the latter have indicated that they were willing and eager to carry out functions such as knocking people up on election day or delivering leafletssuch jobs might be highly relevant at the moment with local elections in the offingbut, because of the nature of the voluntary organisations in which we operate, no one co-ordinated them when there was a desperate need for the service that they offered. In such circumstances, there can be anger on both sides.
	Although the activities that we are discussing might involve voluntary action, they must be performed thoroughly professionally. We cannot possibly have a standard of delivery that falls short of that level or approaches anything like the functioning of a political party as hon. Members have experienced ithence the strength of the amendments and the new clause, which take the huge contribution and professional services of the voluntary sector and seek to include them in the consultation and planning phase.
	I pointed out in an intervention that we take such an approach as a matter of course in relation to the delivery of international aid. The NGOs and organisations such as the Red Cross are included in the planning of the delivery of aid in all sorts of disaster situations. That is part of the basic consultation and planning process. While we are prepared to take that approach in the delivery of international aid for disasters, I suggest that, given the expertise that is available to us, we should do the same as a matter of course with regard to the delivery of relief for contingencies. That seems perfectly sensible, and I look to the Minister to come up with a plausible argument as to why we should not take such an approach, given that we do so in international affairs.
	The House will recall that, when the additional chapter was delivered to the defence reviewit was published before 11 September and did not, by the Government's own estimate, deal adequately with the question of asymmetric threatsits big idea was the civil contingencies reaction force, but the reality is that it exists on paper only. It simply is not adequate for the task. Even if it had been established as was proposed, the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark would have been necessary but, in its absence, they are even more so.

Hazel Blears: We have had a wide-ranging, interesting, constructive and challenging debate about very important issues concerning the role of the voluntary sector and about whether it should have a statutory presence in the Bill in terms of consultation, and about the slightly separate but related issue of creating an emergency volunteer force. The matters are interrelated, but each has distinct issues around it.
	I am sorry to say to hon. Members that the Government cannot accept the amendments. None the less, they raise some interesting questions about the role of the voluntary sector in contingency planning and its position in the Bill. It is worth setting out the Government's position in some detail, as hon. Members have asked me to do, and trying to provide some reassurance about how the central role of the voluntary sector can be encapsulated in the Bill as it stands, taken with the guidance that we propose to develop over coming monthssomething that, as we have already indicated, we will do in full consultation with all the parties involved, including the range of voluntary organisations that have been mentioned, as well as those that have not been mentioned. It is clear that there are many more voluntary organisations than have been named in the debate.
	The Government particularly encourage membership of voluntary organisations and their engagement with key responding organisations. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) who said that this Government have a proud record of involving the voluntary sector not only in this area, but in a range of public service delivery contexts. I think that that is one of the significant differences about this Administration: we have not been afraid to say that the voluntary sectorthe third sector or not-for-profit sectorshould have an increasingly important role in the delivery of mainstream services. That position has not always been popular across all organisations, but it is a key issue for the Government, whose support for the voluntary sector is certainly acknowledged.

Helen Jackson: That was indeed the point that I made. Given those views, how will my hon. Friend mitigate the considerable disappointment and puzzlement felt by parts of the voluntary sector about the idea that they might not be brought into the planning as fully as they want? Is she prepared to have further meetings with them to mitigate that disappointment?

Hazel Blears: I hope that my hon. Friend, as well as the voluntary organisations, will not be disappointed when they have heard all that I have to say today. I do not think that not naming those organisations in the Bill for one moment works against their importance and centrality in terms of planning or the delivery and support mechanisms that they provide. I have no doubt that there will be further meetings, discussions and negotiations as we develop the guidance that will supplement and underpin the Bill.
	The work that is undertaken by voluntary agencies is crucial. It may, for example, include supporting the local ambulance service by providing first aid at casualty clearing stations and first aid posts. Voluntary aid societies also give valuable support to local authorities and the police by befriending and offering information to people in rest and reception centres following an incident. I pay tribute to the well-known and long-standing contribution that voluntary organisations have made to the effective response to civil emergencies. One need only think back to the response to the Potter's Bar and Ladbroke Grove rail crashes to appreciate what a valuable contribution volunteers can make to emergency response. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) mentioned the recent accident in Glasgow and the incident in Morecambe bay and highlighted the contribution that volunteers were able to make in those very distressing circumstances.
	I am surprised that no hon. Member has mentioned this document that I have laid my hands on, which is entitled Dealing with Disaster. It is in its revised third edition and is the seminal work on the relationship between the authorities and local responders, including civil protection, at a local level. I refer hon. Members to chapter 6, which, as I was heartened, although not surprised, to see, covers in great depth the role of the voluntary sector in relation to a whole range of issuesnot simply acting in a supportive, befriending role once an event has happened, but planning at the outset and being involved in all the aspects that the statutory agencies will consider. As the document acknowledges right at the beginning,
	Major emergencies can overstretch the resources of the emergency services and local authorities.
	The value of additional support from the voluntary sector has been demonstrated on many occasions, and chapter 6 deals with the planning principles involved.

Julian Brazier: Will the Minister explain why she objects to amendments suggesting that there should be a statutory duty to consult them? Will she also say from where, within the existing set-up, the Government expect to get, in a hurry, expertise in the nuclear, biological and chemical spheres if the incident does not happen to occur close to a regular Army base?

Hazel Blears: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will come to why the duty to consult should not be in the Bill. The voluntary sector is so diverse that it would be invidious to try to single out particular organisations for involvement, and there are practicalities involved in where to find the people who are able to help us in the dreadful circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.
	I am genuinely surprised that no other hon. Member referred to Dealing with Disaster, which provides pretty extensive guidance.

Jonathan Djanogly: rose

Mike Hancock: rose

Hazel Blears: I shall give way in a moment.
	I have already given our commitment to build on that guidance to ensure that we continue to embed the voluntary sector in the heart of our civil contingency planning.

Mike Hancock: As the Minister says, that document spells it all out. She did not say, however, that it also acknowledges that despite the existence of all these different groups and responsibilities, there are two problems: first, the lack of anyone with sufficient knowledge of the co-ordinated approach; and, secondly, how one readily brings all those people together when they are needed. That is the failure that we are trying to address and which is expressed in the document.

Hazel Blears: I do not accept that there is a failure of co-ordination, but I do accept that we need to improve our response in this changing world in which we live, where the threat is becoming much more serious than ever before. I certainly would not want to caricature as a failure the response of many good and able voluntary organisations, together with the statutory services. It would be wrong to talk down our services in that way, and I pay tribute to them for the contribution that they make.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister has referred extensively to a document that no hon. Members appear to have seen or heard about, and which none of the voluntary organisations referred to in their written submissions. Perhaps it should be disseminated a bit more widely.

Hazel Blears: I was made aware of Dealing with Disaster, although I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee. I am sure that other hon. Members have a much deeper and wider knowledge than I do of the seminal nature of that document, which is, I am sure, available from the Library. Indeed, it is a Cabinet Office publication, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could get access to it.

Patrick Mercer: Chapter 6 is familiar to me, as is the whole document. I am intrigued, though, by what the Minister is saying about the integration between the voluntary sector and, for want of a better phrase, the blue light services. I am heartened by her remarks. As she, more than anyone, will be familiar with the new threats that are evolving, will she be kind enough to outline the Government's plans to equip the voluntary organisations with personal protection equipment?

Hazel Blears: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will deal with the practical measures that we intend to take, as well as the legislative measures.
	I should emphasise that voluntary sector liaison groups will be involved at the local level through the local resilience forums that are envisaged in the Bill. Local authorities already do a significant amount of work in training volunteers for their roles in emergencies and involving them in multi-agency exercises. The document highlights the need for joint training, joint exercises and joint involvement at every stage. Certainly, the voluntary sector is being involved to a very great extent in areas that have been visited by officials in recent months.
	There is nothing in the Bill that prevents voluntary organisations from remaining fully engaged, and we will continue to encourage local responders to engage the voluntary sector wholeheartedly in local multi-agency planning and response through the guidance that supports the Bill. We will use that guidance to turn that vision into a reality.
	Amendment No. 11 would impose a duty on category 1 responders such as emergency services and local authorities to consult voluntary organisations in the performance of their duties under the Bill, while leaving the manner and extent to which they are consulted as a matter for their own judgment. Under amendment No. 20, the identification of voluntary sector organisations would be a matter for the individual responder. Of course, I agree that, where appropriate, statutory responders should consult and involve voluntary sector partners to the fullest extent in the planning phase. Statutory responders accept that and are already so engaged. It is difficult to see what the amendment would add to this approach. It is of doubtful merit to impose a legal obligation on responders to consult the voluntary sector if the responder itself decides who must be consulted, the extent of the consultation, and the manner in which the consultation takes place. Moreover, I wonder how such a duty would be monitored and enforced. A legal duty that says to the person upon whom it is imposed that it is for them to choose whom to consult, when, how and to what extent is very fragile, and I cannot see what it adds to our current position.

Helen Jackson: I suppose that what hon. Members want to hear is that the proposals that may come out of the guidance, together with the Bill, will recognise in a new and more significant way the role of voluntary organisations across the board. Does my hon. Friend think that including the voluntary organisations in the guidance notes will strengthen their role? They have yet to be convinced of that.

Hazel Blears: I hope that I can convince them. I accept the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendments and I believe that it is shared. Although I am loth to praise the hon. Member for Huntingdon, he said that he wanted the nation's full contribution, not only that of the state, to be brought to bear, and that sums up our attitude in general. For civil contingencies, we are considering not simply statutory organisations but civil society. Renewal of civil society is the passion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the golden thread that runs through many Government policies. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough that a legal duty is currently unnecessary because the guidance will help to put the voluntary sector much more at the heart of our planning proposals. I hope that she will realise that.
	Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 and 17 would enable regulations made under the Bill to require category 1 responders to collaborate with the voluntary sector, delegate functions for which the measure provides to the sector, or have regard to or adopt the work carried out by it. Clause 2(5)(d) already permits such regulations to be made and the amendments would therefore have no practical effect. Amendments could be tabledI do not want to mislead the Housebecause we do not yet propose to use the regulation-making powers in that way, but they exist, should their use become necessary. The amendments that we are considering are unnecessary to grant us that legal power.
	Amendment No. 16 would enable a Minister of the Crown to require a category 1 responder to share information with a voluntary or humanitarian organisation. The Bill currently enables a Minister to require provision of information only between responders, not to voluntary organisations. Although I acknowledge the need for category 1 responders to share information with voluntary organisations when they are engaged in the planning process, it is not necessary to make provisions that require them to do that.
	The voluntary sector plays a supporting role in emergency planning and response. It is inconceivable that, when a statutory responder chooses to make use of the resources and expertise of a voluntary organisation in its planning work, the information required to fulfil its role would not be provided. I cannot imagine for one moment that, if a local authority asked the WRVS to take care of people at an emergency reception centre, for example, the local authority would not give the organisation details of the location of the centre. Providing such details would involve the voluntary organisation in the planning at an early stage.

Julian Brazier: I wonder whether the Minister has thought about her comments. Does she genuinely believe that, throughout the country, bureaucracies will get it right every time? Will they always anticipate whom they may need in crises, consult each of them and include them in their plans? Surely it is a good idea to tell authorities that they must release the information, not least because many organisations may be able to contribute in ways about which local authorities do not know.

Hazel Blears: We could hold an interesting debate on bureaucracy, especially in the light of the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I am trying to find the best way in which to achieve the result that we all want: good, well prepared, effective plans that can be implemented quickly without necessarily tying up organisations in a plethora of regulations that militate against our being able to act promptly and to a high and professional standard.
	Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 76 and 77 would extend the duty on local authorities to provide business continuity advice to community organisations. Clause 4 tries to minimise the economic impact of an emergency and its focus is therefore on commercial activities. That does not mean that local authorities could not extend, if they wished, their business continuity advice to the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors. However, the provision is aimed at keeping the economy moving in the event of an emergency. It is therefore inappropriate to accept those amendments.
	I want to consider new clause 1, which would establish an emergency volunteer reserve. I have spoken at length about the outstanding contribution that volunteers throughout the country make to contingency planning and response work. We must consider the arguments of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) in favour of some form of voluntary reserve force in that context and try to balance the benefits and the costs. Such a force would not be cost-free, and I share some of the concerns that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst expressed.
	Existing voluntary organisations already employ a permanent cadre of staff and have permanent structures and an infrastructure. For example, I understand that the British Red Cross employs 3,000 permanent staff to facilitate its volunteers' work. Setting up a new emergency volunteer force could prove costly. There could also be other costs. Long-standing, tried and tested voluntary organisations could be undermined. Organisations such as the Red Cross, the WRVS, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, volunteer medical staff or retained firefighters, with proven track records, are already embedded in existing planning frameworks. I was therefore intrigued by the debate between the hon. Members for Newark, for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who was trying to tease out what overlap and integrate meant. They discussed whether the provision would establish a new force or strengthen existing forces. We did not get to the bottom of that.
	Setting up a new force would be burdensome and bureaucratic and could undermine existing voluntary organisations. I agree with all hon. Members who said that people in this country rally round in an emergency and want to make a contribution. Our task as a Government is to make it as easy as we can for people who have the skills and want to volunteer to get involved, use their talents and make their contribution, without necessarily establishing a new organisation in the way that the hon. Member for Newark suggests.

Mike Hancock: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: Let me first deal with a point that I believe the hon. Gentleman made.
	Several hon. Members referred to the role of the Red Cross in the aftermath of the terrible events in Madrid. We should be a little wary; voluntary organisations in other countries sometimes have a different role because of the way in which those countries' public services have developed over many decades. I understand that the Red Cross in Spain is a mainstream organisation with facilities such as blood banks, ambulances and the ability to respond. That is slightly different from some of the voluntary organisations in this country.
	We should not for one moment undermine the ability of our statutory services to respond to emergencies. I hope that not one hon. Membercertainly not the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)suggests that the ambulance service, the fire service, the police service or any of our blue-light services are not up to the job. They do a fantastic job in responding to emergencies and they have well established procedures and agreements for mutual aid, for example, to draw in ambulance services and the police service from neighbouring areas. I was worried when the hon. Member for New Forest, West appeared to imply that the statutory services were not in a position to provide an excellent service. I hope that he did not have that in mind.

Desmond Swayne: I am sure that when the Minister consults the Official Report tomorrow she will find nothing in my remarks to lead to the inference that she has drawn. Will she outline the capability of the ambulance service and the fire service specifically to deal with nuclear, biological and chemical incidents?

Hazel Blears: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the fire service has received an extra 56 million for the new dimension project for its new vehicles. I believe that 5 per cent. of the police service have been trained to respond in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We recently doubled the number of gas-tight suits for the emergency services. The hon. Gentleman knows that we continuously increase the preparedness of those organisations.
	I want to speak briefly about the civil contingency reaction forcesCCRFsbecause much has been made of whether they could assist in an emergency. I know that the hon. Member for Newark has been concerned about that. Allegations have been made that many are deployed overseas and are therefore not in a position to respond. The CCRFs were up and running and fully mobilised by 31 December. I understand that there are 14 reaction forces, with 500 members eachapproximately 7,000 people. I am told that 850 members are currently mobilised overseas or on active service in the UK. We are therefore considering a relatively small minority of those forces. I am also told that some of the CCRFs have a pool of reservists bigger than 500 members because they realise that operational and deployment capabilities might reduce them. The 51 (Scottish) Brigade uses an opt-out method. It says that everyone is in the CCRF unless they do not wish to be. Consequently, the pool of reserves is much higher.
	It has 670 and 690 personnel available to serve in each unit; the fact that 78 are currently deployed on operations therefore has little impact. I am glad to be able to reassure the House that the CCRF will be able to carry out that work for us.
	The points raised by hon. Members today have illustrated their real commitment to ensuring that we involve the voluntary sector in our work, and I am happy to give them an assurance that we shall do so. I very much appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough tabled her amendments, but I really cannot support their inclusion in the Bill.

Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being very good humoured. I am sure that all hon. Members will be interested to read her speech tomorrow because, like many others, I am slightly bemused by how the Government are going to co-ordinate the voluntary sector. During the very long reply that she has given this evening, she has not once mentioned how that is to happen. The House is entitled to an explanation if she is going to urge us to vote against the amendments.

Hazel Blears: The amendments before us propose incorporating a duty to consult the voluntary sector. I have explained that that would be invidious, as the voluntary sector is a diverse area of 141,000 different charities, in which 69 per cent. of the activity involves only fundraising. Furthermore, in social services and education, voluntary activity is not necessarily focused on civil protection. It would therefore be inappropriate to include such a requirement in the Bill. New clause 1 proposes the creation of an emergency volunteer force, and I hope that I have explained why that would be a bureaucratic, extra imposition that would lead to a lack of clarity and consistency, rather than building on the capabilities of the voluntary organisations that we have already.
	In response to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), I have made it clear that, in the preparation of the guidance that will form an essential part of the overarching framework of our civil protection, we will ensure that the voluntary sector takes on a central role, because we recognise that the people of this country want to make a contribution to looking after others and protecting the safety of our nation. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the new clause to a vote.

Patrick Mercer: I am extremely interested to hear the Minister's summing up of the various arguments that have been put forward, and extremely disappointed to hear the Government's reaction to the amendments, whose provisions are sensible, practical and cheap. On 11 September 2001, one reason why the authorities were able to react so quickly and effectively to those unprecedented incidents was that there were widespread reserves of policemen, ambulance men, firemen and national guardsmen. One of the reasons why things were not worse in Madrid was that Spain had learned the lesson, over the previous couple of years, that additional manpower was necessary to deal with such events. Similarly, following the Bali bomb, Australia has raised a complete new force of people who will help its equivalent of the blue-light services to make headway in such situations.
	With one or two exceptions, everyone who has spoken tonight recognises the need for the Government to be able to exercise and physically implement the plans that they are putting forward. The fact remains, however, that not one additional man or woman has been added to the Government's inventory to help in circumstances that will, frankly, be unprecedented.

Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend share my dismay at the Minister's attempt to reassure us about the civil contingencies reaction forces? The example that she gave of 51 (Scottish) Brigade merely reinforced the fact that the numbers involved are purely notional, because anyone who happens to be a member is counted as being available, although in reality that capacity exists only on paper.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am sure that he will have heard that the motto for the civil contingencies reaction forces is Overstretched and Overseas. The Minister would do well to ponder that not one extra person has been added to the Government's inventory to fight in such circumstances. I am particularly interested to note that she did not answer my question on why, if the voluntary sector was being further and further integrated in order to work with the blue-light services, as she claimed, no personal protection equipment had been introduced. The fact remains that this is utterly unsatisfactory. I cannot accept what the Government say, and shall seek to divide the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2
	  
	Emergency Public Education And Training Board

'(1)   There shall be an Emergency Public Education and Training Board consisting of
	(a)   up to six members appointed by the Secretary of State representative of Category 1 responders;
	(b)   up to six members appointed by the Secretary of State representative of Category 2 responders; and
	(c)   up to six other members appointed by the Secretary of State.
	(2)   The Secretary of State may by order make provision in respect of the duties undertaken by the Emergency Public Education and Training Board.'.[Patrick Mercer.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 100, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, after 'maintain', insert 'resilient'.

Patrick Mercer: New clause 2 relates to two particular measuresinforming the public about a threat and training them to deal with it.
	This is not a new subject in the public forum. It was talked about during pre-legislative scrutiny before the Bill was considered in Committee, discussed endlessly in Committee and has had any number of outings both in the press and generally in the public place. It is interesting that the Government have continually denied the need for public information. For example, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was particularly vocal in Committee about there always being a fine balance to be struck between telling the people too much and panicking them and not telling the public anything at all.
	When we talked in Committee about the need for public information, the Government made it clear that there was no further need for a campaign to tell people precisely what was going on. We mentioned that the level of national alert was never disseminated in a public place and that we had always to rely on the BBC, and particularly Radio 4's Today programme, to leak the fact that the level of national alert went up or down.
	For instance, after the bombings in early November of our embassies in Turkey, the public were simply not told that the alert level had gone up to its second highest possible stage, until we were told of the situation on national radio. It was interesting that, despite having talked about the issue in Committee and despite the Government having resisted any attempts to inform the public about what the threat was, it was left to the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police to mount an effective and thorough poster campaign immediately after the Madrid bombing. That gives the lie to the assertions that information would panic the public or that information was not necessary.

Michael Fabricant: Over new year I was in New York city. My hon. Friend may not be aware that Fox News, CNN and WCBS-TVthe local CBS affiliateall had a banner across their news bulletins setting out the state of alert, which happened to be very high in New York city at that time. Does he think that that might be an indicator that could be employed in this country, given that there was no mass panic in New York and that the celebrations for new year's eve were performed well with many people attending them despite a high level of alert and the fact that they were informed of that situation?

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. We ran out of time when we were discussing the previous new clause, but I intended to say that, during the second world war, we had an organisation known as the Civil Defence. It gave timely warnings about the likelihood of attack. Clearly, that would have been a conventional attack, probably mounted by the Luftwaffe. A terrorist attack is rather different. None the less, I believe that my hon. Friend made a valuable point. For example, during my several tours of duty in Ulster, it was always clear to me that information was being given by the police to the public about precisely what the threat was. It was less full than the American system. We have a formal system, and I suggest to the Government that there would be no harm in allowing the public to know. Rather than using the media to disseminate the message, part of the public information campaign should be exactly as my hon. Friend suggests. There should be a proper and orchestrated way of telling the public precisely what the level of threat is.
	The Society of Industrial Emergency Service Officers says:
	The experience of SIESO members in warning and informing the public of the potential dangers of living next to top tier COMAH sites
	in other words, power stations and the like
	gives the lie to the Government's belief that pre-education of the general population would cause panic. There is a need for people to know what measures they can take to safeguard themselves prior to the arrival of professional help.
	Similarly, last year the Metropolitan police commissioned a report on possible co-operation between the Government and the private sector. That was known as Project Unicorn and it reported earlier this year, although the Government have chosen not to publicise the conclusions. Project Unicorn states:
	To the public at large the CBRN threat is undoubtedly the most frightening aspect of the 'new terrorism' . . . The Commercial Sector appears to be unanimous in its criticism of the present counter-terrorism Communications Policy prior to a major incident: they found it outdated, condescending, generally uncoordinated and at times incoherent.
	I do not think that I need add to those two damning indictments of the fact that the Government are not prepared to tell us what is going on. I suggest that we might follow the example of the Australian Government.
	Many people say that this country is extremely proof to terrorism, that the public are used to it and will be able to take it on the chin, and that living through 30-odd years of activity by the Irish Republican Army and similar organisations has made London and other large cities pretty resilient, if the Minister does not mind my borrowing that phrase, to the effects of terrorism. It is therefore interesting that, after the Bali bomb, which killed plenty of Australians but did not kill anybody in Australia, the Australian Government, who have no real experience of terrorism, chose to take the subject extremely seriously.
	The Australian Government chose to spend the money that needed to be spent and to do the research required of a responsible Government. That is why every single Australian has received information from his Government and why the Prime Minister has written to every Australian, beginning his letter, Dear fellow Australian. An information pack that is now in the hands of every Australian household contains practical little measures such as fridge magnets with all the emergency telephone numbers that any member of the public might want to refer to.
	Why are we not doing that? Yes, it would cost and, yes, there would be opportunity cost, but have the Government failed to understand that the population are not a bunch of naughty schoolchildren, but responsible adults? I believe that knowledge dispels fear; it does not inspire panic, unless it is articulated irresponsibly or badly. Again, I speak from personal experience. The population of Northern Ireland were constantly told what the threat was and I never once saw panic over there.
	Go back 11 years in this country, and just before the traditional IRA pre-Christmas bombing campaign, the Government chose to tell the population of London precisely what was going on.

Martin Smyth: Just this past weekend, every pub in Bangor was advised of a threat, which was also newsworthy. The hon. Gentleman speaks about letting everyone know about the threat: the Government sent a booklet dealing with the Belfast agreement to every home in Northern Ireland, but this is a much more important issue because it involves life and death.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful for that helpful and perspicacious intervention. I hope that the Government pay attention to the words of an hon. Member who has clearly been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism for the past several decades.
	It is interesting that the Government still continue not to take such action. The examples are there; other nations have tried those measures. I return to the point that, just before Christmas 11 years ago, we were told that if we owned lock-ups in London and saw suspicious groups of men, particularly if they were speaking with Irish accents, the police should be informed because there was a likelihood of a bomb or mortar attack.
	To the best of my knowledge, there was no panic over that and no uprising among aggrieved Irish expatriates. People understood the difficulty and that the job was being done as properly as it could be. They understood that the Government cared and were concerned about their safety. I put the question again: why are this Government not acting on that particular point?
	The next point that the new clause addresses is training of the public going hand in hand with the information that I have already addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned the effects of what turned out to be a benign demonstration here in the House last Wednesday. I accept that it was difficult to know whether the attack could have been lethal, what agent had been used and whether the House reacted correctly or incorrectly, but that is not the point that I am trying to make. The point is that not a single person in the Chamber had received any training in what to do in the event of such an attack.
	About two weeks ago, I received from Officers of the House an hour and a half of extremely effective training in what to do in the event of a fire. At the end of the training, I was much better informed and had been told precisely what to do. One or two anomalies had been ironed out and, having served as a part-time fireman and having been involved in several fires in my time, I felt that I was a much more useful member of the House of Commons community, in more ways than one, than ever before.
	I said to the authorities, Thank you very much indeed, but what do I do in the event of a bomb being discovered outside the House of Commons or a contaminatory attack? Answer came there none. There is no training available that I am aware of. Even more depressing is that fact that, with one or two notable exceptions, no Member of Parliament who spoke in public in the media after that attack said, That is all very well for what is happening in Westminster, but what about our votersthe people who send us here to represent them on these green Benches?
	Very few Members seemed to be able to spread their wings and say, Don't we owe it to our voters to give them some training in what to do in such events? The Government may say that offering such training would frighten people. Fine, but I would say that knowledge dispels fear. The Government may say that the training would be expensive, and I acknowledge that there would be a cost. They may say that we have never done that sort of thing before but that is nonsense. This nation has faced threats in the pastconventional and unconventional.

Peter Bottomley: It might be sensible for my hon. Friend to remind the Government that for many decades we have had a Health and Safety Commission, a Health and Safety Executive and safety representatives at work. People have not been frightened by the analysis of risks at work and ways to reduce them. What he suggests is not quite analogous, but it is pretty similar to what we face in our daily lives at work, and have for many decades.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes the point a thousand times better than I ever could.
	The fact remains that the Government are willing to spend money and resource on health and safety issues, and even on anti-obesity programmes. They are willing to spend time training children in what not to do in a pan of boiling chip fat is tipped over them, but they seem unwilling to address this particular issue, although we have done it before.
	In 1937, training started for the whole population in knowing what to do in the event of attacks by weapons of mass destructionI am talking about aerial bombardment and poison gas. By 1938, the population were properly equipped, as far as they could be, and properly trained. My mother, as a 13-year-old in north-east Nottinghamshire, knew precisely what to do in the event of her being gassed. A game was made of it.
	The fact remains that when the sirens went in September 1939that siren system, I might add, has been completely scrappedthe population filed carefully, quietly and without panic into their shelters and got on as best they could with whatever business they could conduct from there.
	There was no panic. The population were told what was going on and they were warned. It is impossible to say how many lives were saved by that training, but I am sure that many hundreds were saved who might not have been otherwise. Similarly, we carried out training of the population during the cold war, and to a much lesser extentI am sure that other hon. Members will back me up on this pointduring the Irish Republican Army campaign in Northern Ireland and in this country.
	If the Minister believes that there is no need for information or training, I ask her to consider the impact of a terrorist incident on, say, the Madrid scale. Let us conjure with the idea that one of our major cities is attacked three weeks before a general election, and that only 200 are killedthat sounds blunt and cold, but the fact remains that only 200 were killed in Madrid, although more than 1,000 were injured. What would be the political ramifications of a lack of information and training? Will our population forgive any Government for such an attack, as, in many ways, the American population forgave their Government?
	It is fair to say that 11 September came out of the blue. Despite the appalling casualties, the majority of the population were willing to indulge the Government's lack of knowledge and pull together as a nation. Will we do that? First, how many of our people will say, No, we were warned and nothing was done. There was no campaign of public information and precious little public training. There was even precious little training of the emergency services? Secondly, those who opposed the war in Iraq will say that we have brought it on ourselves. Thirdly, and most tellingly, let us suppose that, in that hideous attack, 100 people were killed instantly and another 100 died as a result of burns that could not be dressed, of being poisoned by gases released in the area from which they were not evacuated or of being unable to get blood transfusions through. It would not have been because the emergency services had failedI, for one, am a great admirer of everything that our emergency services dobut because they have simply not been allowed to exercise properly.
	Sergeant Roberts died because he did not have the right equipment in Iraq. The Minister will remember what the tabloid newspapers made of that. If 100 of our people die because the emergency services have not been able to train effectively, the press will blame the Government. They will say, You have killed our children, our spouses, our uncles. I strongly suggest that, in those febrile conditions, the Government will not survive that kind of blow.
	The Minister will say that exercises have taken place. During a debate some weeks ago on Londonthe debate concentrated on the preparedness of LondonI put several points to her about the level of training that had occurred. She only partially answered the question. She made the point that many civil contingencies exercises are taking place, and I wholly concur with her that something is being done. How many exercises, however, are live? How many involve the full panoply of the blue-light services, at a rush hour, with traffic on the roads, people on the pavements and in the undergrounds, and when the blue-light services have not been warned that the exercise will occur? Only by doing those sorts of exercises will the lessons be learned. How many parts of London have removable road signs and road barriers so that ambulances, fire engines and police cars can travel along the pavements when gridlock prevents access to the site of the incident? I know that the Minister will say that endless exercises are going on, but not one, to the best of my knowledge, has taken place in those conditions. Even OSIRIS II, which was as good as it got, was done on a Sunday, with the blue-light services warned beforehand and already in place.
	New clause 2 makes the case clearly for six members appointed by the Secretary of State to be representative of category 1 responders, another six to be representative of category 2 responders, and for up to six other members to be appointed by the Secretary of State. It would provide that the Secretary may by order make provision in respect of the duties undertaken by the emergency public education and training board. I commend the new clause to the House, because unless the Government get a grip of their public information and public training, this country will suffer when the inevitable attack happens, and it will do so needlessly.

Richard Allan: I intend to speak primarily to amendment No. 100, which is grouped with the new clause. I also want to respond to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Mercer).
	I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue, as I have been involved in considering the Bill with him throughout its progress. I was concerned about the direction in which he was taking us, as his argument seemed to be that the Government should commit themselves to an education and training programme so as not to be blamed if something goes wrong. Another perspective is the concern that all this is political, and that it would over-stress the population and create too much of a sense of alarm.
	I recognise that the balance is somewhere in the middle. We all want to give the appropriate information, but I want to put on record my concern that we can end up politically creating a climate of fear. My perception is that the United States Government, through some of the legislation that they have passed, have started to create a climate of perpetual warfare and threat. There are equal dangers in that. That is a counter-perspective, and I recognise that we need to occupy a sensible position in the middle.
	Amendment No. 100 would insert the word resilient in relation to the kind of public information systems that we are asking local authorities to maintain to warn people about an emergency that is about to happen or is happening. I can predict the Minister's responseI am sure that she will say, Of course, the Government would expect those networks to be resilient. My concern, however, is that that is not currently the case.
	When the Government are asked what they are doing to inform the public, we are frequently told that they rely on websites. As hon. Members may know, I am keen on the development of the internet, and spend a lot of time using it. I would not describe it as always resilient, however, and there is something of a myth about the resilience of the internet in the context of some of the emergencies that we are imagining. Its resilience depends on peering points, where peers get togethernot the House of Lords, but usually a warehouse somewhere in east London where computers peer with each other. Increasingly, those may be the subject of attacks, both deliberate and accidental, given their complexity, and my concern is that we are starting to depend on technologies that may be less resilient in an emergency than some of the older technologies such as radio broadcasts, which may be more appropriate in those circumstances.
	Because of the multiplicity of different media types, we are ending up in a situation in which resilience needs to be at the forefront of planners' minds. It may not be deliberate, but the kinds of assumptions that we have made previously about how to get information out may no longer apply. For example, if we wanted an all-channels television broadcast, it used to be the case that we would negotiate with a few major broadcasters. Now, an all-channels television broadcast must go out on 900-odd different channels, involving many different broadcasters. A range of media outlets creates additional complexity.
	My concern in putting the amendment forward is to establish that local authorities need to think about the question of resilience far more than they have done to date. Although there are a lot of communications methods available, they must not simply rely on the fact that those will work at a time of emergency.
	I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I am looking for a strong statement that there will be an attempt to tease out failure points, and that local authorities will be required to address potential failure points rather than being allowed to get away with lazy assumptions about communications mechanisms that may work in emergencies.

Lewis Moonie: The watchword in this debate, and in all debates on our response to potential acts of terrorism or disasters, is resilience. It is used advisedly, and I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that we should always remember that it is the key.
	I speak as one who has spent not inconsiderable time over the years looking at the way in which we respond to disastersand often respond very inadequately. One thing is certain: we should not do anything to reduce resilience. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said earlier, one way of ensuring that it is reduced is adding to the number of committees and other bodies that must be consulted on what is, after all, a series of hypothetical situations.
	That is the great danger. I think that the IRA analogy, for instance, is quite wrong. In that case we were dealing with a predictable set of actions and a reasonably predictable set of responses that could be handled by any fairly intelligent person. Given the greater complexity of the asymmetrical threats that face us now, we cannot predict the form of an attackif it occursand we must therefore ask what exactly we should educate people about. Many of the responses are basic common sense. I do not think the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) is suggesting that in the event of a disaster, we would need hordes of ill-trained and semi-informed actors milling about trying to be helpful. That is the last thing we would need. What we do need is people responding quickly to information.
	Setting up emergency numbers in advance may seem a sensible idea, but our experience of disasters around the world suggests that it is most important to establish a clear line of communication with the public, separate from anyone dealing directly with the disasters. That cannot be done in advance; it can only be done after the event, once the extent of its severity has been calculated by those capable of such a calculation. I am suspicious of any attempt to impose a public education gloss on circumstances that do not lend themselves to the type of education that is being suggested.
	If we intend to be resilient, and set up a multitude of planswhich seems likely, as every area will set up its own planthe civil contingencies unit must monitor events carefully, in order to recognise and implement best practice and generalise from it. Over the next few years we will generate many different ways of coping with potential disasters, but until we have to cope with a real disaster we will not know whether any of them will work. I recommend a book by Patrick Lagadec called Preventing Chaos in a Crisis. If Members read about all the mistakes that have been made, the last thing they will want to do is repeat them.
	The whole point of the exercise that the Government are conductingwith the broad support of Members on both sides of the Houseis to try to avoid chaos when crises develop; for they will develop. I believe that adding to the complexity of what we are trying to do will not help to alleviate chaos in a crisis.

Peter Bottomley: I hope the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) will not mind if I do not follow his line of argument. Let me say, in the gentlest possible way, that I disagree with him entirely.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), with the assistance of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), raised an issue that goes beyond the contingency planning that is best represented in clause 2, which refers to
	preventing the emergency . . . reducing, controlling or mitigating its effects, or . . . taking other action in connection with it.
	The matters that we are contemplating are not just for the professionals; they are for members of the public as well. We should be letting the publicindividuals as well as groupsknow what they can do to help reduce the incidence, impact and consequences of events. If those events do not happen, it will be finethe best job that can be done by the blue-light services is not to turn the blue light onbut when they do happen, more people should know what they can do in order to make a significant difference. They need to know what they should avoid doing because it would do more harm, and what should be done to improve the situation.
	I do not claim to be an expert, but for various reasons I have been around when a number of small disasters have taken place. I was beside the coffin of Oscar Romero, on the occasion of his funeral service on Palm Sunday 1980 in El Salvador, when a number of bombsor demonstration bombswent off in a crowded square containing 20,000 people. There was a lot of shooting from the military headquarters on one side of the square, and people sought refuge in the cathedral. There were two problems. The archbishop's coffin was blocking the doors; and the impact of a crush at the doors, straight away, would have made even the Hillsborough disaster look modest. A small number of us tried to make sure that there was enough space to get the coffin out of the way, and we ended up with about 5,000 people inside the cathedral.
	Fourteen people did die through crushing, which is one of the big panic problems in a disaster. The immediate problem is the rush. I suspect that the number of deaths would have been significantly greater if we had not managed to clear at least a pathway. In the Heysel stadium in 1985, the problem was caused by British louts attacking Italian fans. Because the other British fans were too squashed together, they took the space that was liberated. Plainly what was needed was an English voice on the loudspeaker system telling those not involved in the disturbances to stay where they were, and not to move into space that had become free. If that had happened, there would not have been the push, push, push and the 39 dead Italians.
	It took 20 minutes to find someone with authority to enable microphones and loudspeakers to be used. It is not necessarily the authorities who spot what should be done first; it may be a member of the public. In this case it was me, and I did not succeed in getting it done fast enough, but another 200 or 300 people there might, with some foreknowledge, have been able to say, This needs to be done. They might have passed on the message, so that someone with the necessary authority and control could take effective action.
	Then there was the King's Cross disaster. People were brought out of the underground after a fire that was notso to speaknecessary, and had consequences that were not necessary either. I suspect that, as in the case of the fire at the Bradford football stadium, many people knew that there was rubbish around that could be set alight. The cause of the fire might not be known, but the existence of fuel that need not and should not have been there was something of which any member of the public should be aware.
	We learned from the Windsor castle fire that breaking up roof spaces stops a fire spreading. As a result of explosions, gas can be ignited. If ordinary members of the public were aware that the presence of unnecessary combustible material is wrong, public emergency training and education could greatly reduce secondary consequences, although it might still be impossible to prevent the primary cause.
	So generally raising people's awareness of the practical steps that can be taken is important. If the Government do not accept the new clause today, it is fairly safe to say that they will have to answer some of the arguments in detail now and later, and that they are almost certain to say within six weeks or six months, Well, perhaps we will adopt it in a modified form. I would much prefer them to say today that they have authorised the Minister to accept it, and that they have tried to work out the consequences. However, my experience is that Ministers who agree with a particular proposal often have to put the argument against it because of the process of government.
	According to this process, a good idea is first ignored, then people just say no, bringing up the historical negative whereby one cannot do something in a new way because it has not been done that way before. But when the Government of the day produce a two and a half page argument against the proposal in question, they actually engage with the arguments, and within six weeks or six months they say, It was our idea in the first place and we always intended to do it, so we aren't going to share the credit with others.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark and I would not mind if the Government did not share the credit for this proposal, so long as they introduce such a board. The proposal is a sensible one, involving as it does category 1 responders such as local authorities and the emergency services, category 2 responders such as the utilities and the transport agencies, and independents. Such a structure is very similar to that of the Health and Safety Commission, which is also a tripartite body. Of course, one reason why our performance in respect of injury and death at work is about the best in the world is the existence of a tripartite system that involves independent experts and the two sides of industry. Combining the two sides of the emergency servicesput simply, local government, and the blue light serviceswith the utilities and the transport agencies would be a good way of achieving the same thing.
	Moreover, having a public discussion is probably the best way of dealing with the ghouls and the real worries. The worst worry is the darkness; having light is not actually a serious worry. Each of us, whatever our station or responsibilities in life, will at some stage be told that we or someone dear to usa parent, spouse or childwill have our date of death known rather more accurately than we anticipated. Nothing can bring death where there would otherwise be unending life; the question is whether death is to be brought forward. If each of us can cope with such information, I suspect that we can cope with anything that might emerge from an emergency public education and training board.
	It is open to the Government to say that their civil contingencies system will be able to absorb the kind of work to which the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark relates. That argument is perhaps slightly better than the one offered by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, but it is not good enough. There could be an overarching national body and a body for each of the nations of the United Kingdom, and certain groups could be given the task of working on particular issues. However, my belief is that we ourselves know more about what we can do, and that we could contribute our knowledge.
	Let us consider the Kegworth air disaster, in which an airliner landed on the M1. Some four or five hours after it happened, I said to Sir Michael Bishopthis sounded a bit odd to say so in the middle of a disasterthat I thought he was doing rather well. He said that he had gone through what his and his team's reaction ought to be to such a disaster. Although one hopes that planes will always land safely, one has to plan for when things go wrong. He and his people knew what to do. I am not sure that the general public always know what to do, which is one reason for having the kind of board that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark has proposed.
	I am very pleased that we are having this debate. Contingent on a serious approach to our growing knowledge and anticipation of disasterbe it man-made or natural, deliberate or accidentalis the beneficial and open discussion that such a board would enable. I hope that the House will agree to the new clause without Division. If, by chance, the Government have instructed the Minister to resist it, I hope that such resistance will not be offered on the basis of poor reasoning.
	Board after board, forum after forum and organisation after organisation have been introduced in the past seven years, although I shall not take this opportunity to discuss my current pet worry, which is the proposed substitute for the community health councils. The House should reject the argument that we should not create this board, which has a real purpose and could be made to work. The people expect us to anticipate what will be helpful, and such a board would be.

Elfyn Llwyd: If ever we needed to remind ourselves that education and instruction are extremely important, what happened last Wednesday must surely remind us. Nobody in this Chamber knew what was going on, and, more to the point, nobody knew what we should have been doing at that time. I was told after the event that we should all have sat down to await decontamination. I was one of the last to leave the Chambernot because I am brave but because I was not sure what the hell was going on. However, everybody left the Chamber.

Martin Smyth: I notice that Government Front Benchers were nodding agreement at the point about decontamination. The amazing thing was that even those at the very top of Parliament did not know what to do. It was the recipients of the attack who were in the most danger, and it was they who should have stayed put until they were decontaminated. Opposition Members should have got out of the Chamber as quickly as possible, before the powder spread. That incident highlights the very point that we are trying to get across: education is necessary in every eventuality.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; indeed, I could not have put it better myself. Of course, if we in this place are not sure what is going on, how can we expect the public to behave in the safest manner in a civil emergency?
	In the days of the cold war, I remember receiving leaflets on what to do in the event of an attack. They made people think about such things, but they did not strike fear into them. I certainly do not recall a wave of panic around where I lived, and I doubt whether we are more resilient than the rest of the United Kingdom. Such a public information campaign was undertaken even back then, but we have moved on a bit since. We have a Government who are very keen on imparting informationalbeit selectivelyand on using all manner of media to do so. It has been suggested that websites be used, but some elderly people do not even know what a website is. Indeed, although some of us who are less elderly know what they are, we are not very good at using them.
	Last year there was a severe flooding problem in my constituency, which affected two or three villages. There was the odd newsflash on television, and apparently a limited attempt was made to telephone people. The Environment Agency decided that although the incident might be severe, it would not treat it as severe because fewer than 100 houses were affected. I do not know what kind of message that sends. Of course, the Environment Agency denied at the time that it got it wrong, but it has since realised what happened and has publicly announced that things have been tightened.
	As I said, there were some newsflashes on television, but I know of some elderly people who did not really want to watch the television that evening; they preferred instead to read the newspaper by the fireside. They and all their furniture were badly affected, and although their neighbours came to help, it was a bit late in the day. The example of those three villages shows that we needed to tighten procedures in respect of risks of which we were already fully aware. They had been flooded before, yet still the Environment Agency did not get it right.

Stephen Pound: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest, but surely he is running up against the counter-intuitive wall. On the occasion of the purple powder-packed prophylactic projectile, everyone's natural instinct was to flee, when it would have been logical to stay and die for one's country and avoid spreading the problem. It is that measure of seriousness. How on earth can we educate people that it is better to stay and die than to go and spread the problem? That will be difficult. With the best will in the world, it will be beyond websites.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree entirely. I have no doubt about that, but there are other scenarios in which, although there may a serious risk, some steps that could easily be taken will minimise the risk for some people. Let us save them at least for heaven's sake, if we can.
	I have a particular interest in the dirty bomb scenario. As the crow flies, I live about 15 miles from a decommissioned nuclear power station. It does not take a genius to work out that that is a real threat. Of all UK constituencies, mine was the worst affected by the Chernobyl fallout, and it is still affected. I have been to Chernobyl and unfortunately seen the effects there, too.

Lewis Moonie: In the absence of any radiated fuel on the site, as is the case with a decommissioned power station, the risk from explosion is relatively minor.

Elfyn Llwyd: The fuel is kept on-site. It has not been moved.

David Heath: To move from a decommissioned nuclear installation to one that is activeHinkley Pointin the 1980s I had a protracted argument with the Central Electricity Generating Board about whether local communities should be issued with potassium iodide tablets, so that they were ready for an emergency; whether there should be muster points in village halls, which there should have been; and whether people would know about what was going to happen and which radio station to tune into to get local information. We eventually won that argument in respect of Hinkley A and B but I am not sure of the position in the rest of the country.

Elfyn Llwyd: The point that I was trying to make was that the rods have been taken away but the medium and low-level waste remains on-site. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) agrees on that.
	Where I come from, we are living with a real danger. The local council has set up its own liaison committee. It has had a civil defence committee type of thing for many years, but no one in the local council seems to know what would happen if there were an incident, apart from one or two council officials, so again that is a failure.
	I am not making any political point. If the Minister tells the House that the training board is not necessary, will she please say how we will get up to speed to ensure that the information is available, and that everyone knows in a given set of circumstances what they should be doing. How will we ensure that the public are properly protected? That is her concern, it is my concern and it is the concern of the whole Chamber.
	The whole point of the Bill is to update and to strengthen existing legislation, and I fully agree with it, but if she says that it is otioseto use the usual parliamentary wordor if she uses a similar parliamentary word, will she please explain how that important information will be disseminated? How will we ensure that we reach all the countries of the UK to ensure that any riskheaven knows, we do not want it to happenis minimised as far as possible?

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked a key question: how can information be disseminated? Even the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who disagreed with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made, said that lines of communication are important. My question to the Minister is: how will those lines of communication operate? If there is a flood, generally, one is aware of the problem, although, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy pointed out, that is not always the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) pointed out in a series of examples of catastrophes he has been involved with, witnessed or knows about, communication can break down even when a catastrophe is happening before one's very eyes.
	If a dirty bomb were to go off 100 yds from here, we would not know. When I asked the Home SecretaryI have only just received his written responseabout what training there would be, he answered:
	In the event of an attack, unless people are under the direction of the emergency services, they should go indoors and tune into the TV or radio for further instructions. The media is the main system through which the government and the emergency services will alert the public. The message is 'go in, stay in, tune in'.
	That is all very well if one knows that an event has happened. When we were in Chamber, we saw the purple dye come down. We knew that the event had happened, but if a dirty bomb with a small amount of Semtex spreading radioactive material were to go off, unless

Lewis Moonie: You are not going to die of purple flour.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman shows his ignorance. A dirty bomb may consist of a conventional explosive in which radiological material is embedded. He was a Minister. He knows that. If a bomb were to go off and radiological material were spread by the wind, unless one were in earshot of the bomb, one would not know it had gone off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, the siren system has been dismantled. How would we know that we had to go in, stay in and tune in?

Elfyn Llwyd: A regrettably large proportion of people in eastern Wales cannot receive television transmissions and many valleys throughout the whole of Wales cannot receive radio. Therefore, I am a bit concerned about the Home Secretary's response.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Please God, Meirionnydd will not be a key target but other things may happen, and we know that terrorists often go for soft targets. Dolgellau and other areas could be regarded as a soft target. He is absolutely right. There are areas where there is no local radio, where national radio is difficult to receive, even on long wave, and where television signals are very weak.

Richard Allan: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, which I think I am correct in thinking shows his strong support for the amendment that I have tabled. The decision on the most appropriate form of communication in each area should be made locally. In mid-Wales, it may be different because one cannot get TV and radio reception, but the key test is that networks should be resilient for their areas. That is the test that we must apply.

Michael Fabricant: Again, I quote the point made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy: lines of communication have to be established. The question I ask the Minister is: if a bomb were to go off, but we did not know that it had gone off, how would we know that we had to go in, stay in and tune in, even if there is something to tune in with?
	What is the Minister frightened of? What are the Government so frightened of? Does she have such a low level of trust in the British people that she thinks people will panic if they know about these issues? Why does not she do what they do in the United States of America? Why does not she do what they have done in Australia? I hate to reduce the matter to political phrases, but education, education, education in this instance could be a matter of life or death.
	I should quote another phrase: trust the people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West said, people perform better in the light of knowledge rather than in the darkness of lack of knowledge.
	Let us reflect more on the detail of the message to go in, stay in and tune in. If people are not trained to know exactly what to do, what do they do once they are in? Do they block the windows to ensure that no dust or ricin contaminant comes in? It may be common sense to do that. I do not know: no instructions have been given. As for tuning in, will the Minister tell us whether there is a national emergency system in place nowthere certainly was not a few years agowhereby every single radio channel and every single television channel goes to one source, so that the same message is sent out?

Hazel Blears: indicated assent.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister nods, so I hope that that means that whatever station one tunes into, a network feed will tell people exactly what they should do. Again, the problem is that if people do not know that an event has happenedwhether it be a dirty bomb or whateverthey will not tune in. Who outside the Chamberapart from those watching our proceedings on televisionknew at the time that the purple dye had come down? No one in the Tea Room knew. When we all went in there, potentially to contaminate people working there, they did not know what was going on. All they knew was that the House had been suspended because that is what it said on the Annunciator. If we in this small area do not know what is going on, what about the whole of Whitehall and its surrounding area, which would be affected by the wind blowing in any direction?
	I ask the Minister to trust the people, to have faith to educate them and to consider how best to announce to a given area that an incident has happened. The problem is not as obvious as the Blitz in the second world war; it is far subtler than that. The Minister should believe in the fact that, if people know what to do, they will be confident in doing what they have to do.

Hazel Blears: I can see and hear for myself how passionately Members feel about these issues, and I understand that there was a wide-ranging debate in Committee on this very subject. I know that people have strong views, which has been evident in this evening's debate.
	The amendments raise important questions about the level of information, training and advice that the Government can usefully give the public in advance of an emergency, as well as during it and after it has happened. Those three stages are all important. We recognise that the behaviour of the public in all three stages is absolutely crucial. In some circumstances, facilitating self-help by the public could reduce the burden on the emergency services, helping them to act in a way that does not exacerbate their problems. Equally, the public can help to add capacity to the emergency services' ability to respond. The public should, first, do good things to help the emergency services, and, secondly, desist from doing bad things that would hinder them.
	We take these issues seriously. As hon. Members have anticipated, I am not about to agree that the
	Emergency Public Education and Training Board
	in the form recommended in the new clause should be established. I do not believe that that is necessary to ensure that the public are properly informed. I direct hon. Members to clause 2(1)(g), which provides that the responders in part 1 or 2 of schedule 1 shall
	maintain arrangements to warn the public, and to provide information and advice to the public, if an emergency is likely to occur or has occurred.
	That provides for a clear duty to ensure that arrangements are in place to warn the public and to provide information in advance.

Michael Fabricant: What, then, is in place if the dirty bomb, ricin contaminant or whatever were to go off up Whitehall or wherever? How would we know about it, unless we were tuned in to the radio at the time?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman has raised his point before I have responded to those of other hon. Members. I had him on my list, but he has raised the issue now. We believe that Go in, stay in and tune in is the best first piece of advice that we can give people, but it would obviously not be appropriate in all circumstances. If there were a fire and a building were collapsing, for example, it would be entirely inappropriate, and the best advice would be the fire service's demand to get out of there.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically whether a national system was in place to ensure that all the emergency broadcasting systems would disseminate the same message, and I can tell him that the UK does have an emergency broadcasting system, and that arrangements are in place to ensure such rapid dissemination of public warnings through the whole range of communicationsradio, television, Ceefax, teletext and websites. My experience of last week's event in Parliament was that all the breaking-news agenciesSky and othersimmediately recognised what had happened. Indeed, members of the public contacted us immediately. Our friends and family were contacting us to express their concerns.

Michael Fabricant: rose

Hazel Blears: I am going to press on because we have dealt only with part 1 of the Bill and we have to move on to Third Reading at 9 o'clock. A whole range of amendments has not yet been covered.

Peter Bottomley: If it is an emergency to try to cover the ground in the Bill, will the Minister send a message to the Leader of the House requesting more time to debate this important measure?

Hazel Blears: We will have had five and half hours to debate the Bill this evening, and we had a lengthy debate on the previous group of amendments dealing with the voluntary sector. That is why I am anxious to press on.
	Clause 2(1)(g) provides the duty, as I explained. Amendment No. 100 is connected and I shall deal with it briefly. It was ably proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who brought out the key point that the responder systems must be resilient if at the end of the day they are to protect the public. I refer him to the Actno, the Bill, I must not be so presumptuousparticularly to clause 2(1)(c), which states that the responders have to
	maintain plans for the purpose of ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, that if an emergency occurs the person or body is able to continue to perform his or its functions.
	That embeds the resilience point. If plans were not in place to carry on and warn the public, there would be a breach of duty under that provision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Bill meets the requirements that he set out in the amendment.
	I have already pointed out that clause 2(1)(g) deals with the responsibility to ensure that the public receive proper information. The clause also requires responders to publish aspects of their civil protection in so far as it is necessary or desirable for preventing an emergency or mitigating its effects. That includes the provision of information about the risks before an emergency happens, the actions to be taken by the authorities and, crucially, the actions that the public can take in the event of an emergency.
	I would like to point out a couple of ways in which that can happen. Several hon. Members have asked about floodsan issue close to my heart, because there is an area in my constituency that was flooded disastrously in the 1930s and people there are currently examining various flood defence schemes. There is a variety of methods, depending on the nature of the incident, through which we can inform people of what is going on.
	For flooding or severe weather, the Environment Agency and the Met Office have well established systems to inform the general public through broadcasting. They also have an automatic telephone dialling system, a fax system and, for hazardous industrial sites and nuclear power stations, there is an obligation on the operator to warn the public within a specified distance. Fixed sirens are often relied on in those circumstances. Water companies will inform their customers about loss of water through loudspeaker vanswe have all heard them: in the old days, they used to tell us to fill the bath up, but I am not quite sure what they are telling us nowand health authorities will contact vulnerable groups if there is a health risk. More generally, the police are likely to warn members of the public if there is an immediate threat to life. That could be done in person by constables, or by a helicopter using sky shouta system that enables warnings to be sent down from helicopters.
	On Friday, I visited the Home Secretary's constituency, where there is a new van that has both cameras and a loudspeaker system, to alert people if an incident should occur.
	There is a wide variety of emergencies, so there is a wide range of ways of alerting the public. There is not one simple, uniform method.

David Heath: I am part of the system, because my constituency floods every year and I am the village contact who is telephoned by the automatic dialling systemwhich is not terribly resilient, because if I am here when there is a flood, I am out of touch.
	My point was that there should be commonality of systems wherever possible. For instance, would the Environment Agency system be available to other emergency services, to give advice, because it makes common sense for that to be the case, so that we do not have a variety of systems reaching the wrong people rather than a single system reaching the right people?

Hazel Blears: There is a balance to be struck, and I am sure that there is common sense about using systems that are already in place, but we must also have the right people in charge of the right area, and in seeking a completely homogeneous system, we could lose out on the particular skills and knowledge of the various agencies. We want to keep the lead agencies for their expertise, and we should not overlook the possibility of using their infrastructureavoiding the cost of creating new infrastructure. That needs to be developed through guidance and regulations, which are part of the framework that we need to set up. It cannot be right, however, to have only one system, when the threats are various. That is why clause 2 makes it a local duty to have proper arrangements in place to inform the public.
	We see no real merit in setting up the board proposed in the new clause, because there is no such thing as a standard terrorist threat or incident, so there can be no standard response. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said in his thoughtful and insightful contribution that resilience should be flexible enough to respond to threats that we had perhaps not even contemplated. The responders need to co-operate, as there is not one size that fits all.

Patrick Mercer: In at least three newspapers recently, there have been reports that the Government intend to produce a leaflet for every household. Indeed, a draft of it was leaked to one of the newspapers. It certainly was not perfect, but it struck me that it was better than nothing. Do the Government intend to do that?

Hazel Blears: We have considered the matter over the past 18 months, and a range of issues is under consideration. I do not intend to comment on individual leaks at this stage, but as well as leaflets we have done a huge amount with the websites and we are considering a whole range of ways of being in contact with the public.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked about the resilience of electronic infrastructure. Clearly, that is a key issue for our capabilities programme, and we are very conscious of it. It is vital for our resilience to keep up to date, as we are far more dependent on electronic communication than we were in the past.
	The Home Office site contains advice on the threats and what to do at home, at work or when travelling, and information on what the Government are doing to help. The MI5 site, which was launched fairly recently, contains much more detailed advice on the threats that we face and what businesses can do. It describes how individuals can help combat the threat, acting as our eyes and ears.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office site provides constantly updated advice on threats abroad. London Prepared provides detailed advice on business continuity planning, with links to many other organisations. Many other departmental sites also include resilience and counter-terrorism advice and information.
	There are 15 Government reports on resilience-related issues, and we have guidance for schools and teachers, through the TeacherNet site. There is a whole range of public information resources to ensure that the messages are accessible to as much of the public as possible.

Michael Fabricant: If a biological, radiological or other weapon of mass destruction was let off near a school, say, how would people know to log on to one of those websites? How would they know to tune in to the radio, without there being a siren system or another system to let them know that an event had happened?

Hazel Blears: The response would vary depending on the incident. For example, in a nuclear installation there would be sirens, and on the street the emergency services would be the first there and would set up a cordon and instruct the public, and our normal systems of responding to emergencies would be in place.
	We need to have some perspective and get the balance right. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) asked about live exercises. As he well knows, numerous exercises are taking place, both table-top and reality, and there was Operation Magpie just a couple of weeks ago. No-notice exercises such as he suggested would simply cause chaos and create the effect of an incidentalmost doing the terrorists' job for them. None of the emergency services advocates such exercises. I urge the House to resist the new clause and the amendment.

Patrick Mercer: I am extremely disappointed but not surprised by the Government's reaction. Let me say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that the points that I was trying to make were not political, but in fact supportive of the Government, because the last thing that this nation needs in the aftermath of a terrible incident is a Government put under intolerable pressure by the media about things that could have been avoided before the incident rather than being revealed by it.
	The Minister's response on training is especially disappointing. The fact remains that if the Government follow any of the precedents, they must realise that there will be an opportunity cost for getting people and society prepared.
	Only by so doing will we avoid the unnecessary loss of life and the political ramifications that will result. I am very disappointed by the Government's response and I shall seek to divide the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 306.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3
	  
	Emergency Powers Committee

'Where Her Majesty or a senior Minister of the Crown thinks that the conditions for making emergency regulations are satisfied, such regulations shall be placed before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament consisting of members of the Privy Council (known as the Emergency Powers Committee) for consideration prior to the laying of such regulations.'.[Mr. Heald.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Oliver Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 49, in clause 21, page 14, line 31, leave out 'whether written or oral', and insert
	'in writing to the Emergency Powers Committee'.
	No. 63, in clause 26, page 17, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert
	'(a)   these regulations shall be put to a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament consisting of members of the Privy Council chosen to reflect the political balance of the House of Commons (hereafter to be known as the Emergency Powers Committee), before their acceptance, to provide an initial and acceptable parliamentary check.'.
	No. 70, in clause 26, page 17, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert
	'(a)  (i)   these regulations shall be put to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament consisting of members of the Privy Council chosen to reflect the political balance of the House of Commons (hereafter referred to as the Emergency Powers Committee), before their acceptance, to provide an initial and acceptable parliamentary check.
	(ii)   a senior Minister of the Crown shall then, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay the regulations before Parliament, provided that he believes on reasonable grounds that he has used his best endeavours to consult the Emergency Powers Committee.
	(iii)   a senior Minister of the Crown may dispense with the requirements of paragraph (a) above if he believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so by reason of urgency.'.
	No. 3, in clause 26, page 17, line 43, at end insert
	'(3A)   Paragraph (1) of House of Commons Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents) shall not apply to proceedings in the House of Commons under this section.'.
	No. 74, in clause 26, page 17, line 45, leave out paragraph (a).
	No. 75, in clause 26, page 18, line 1, leave out 'affect anything' and insert 'render unlawful'.
	No. 4, in clause 29, page 18, line 41, at end insert
	'(3)   Emergency regulations may make provision to disapply or modify an enactment under section 21(3)(j) only if a draft of the regulations or order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Oliver Heald: It has taken some time, but we are now examining part 2. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the concern expressed by many people, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, about the progress of the Bill and its scrutiny. In its most recent report, the Committee was optimistic that the Minister for the Cabinet Office would change his position in an amendment to be tabled on Report. Government amendment No. 93, which we may reach later, would require emergency regulations to include a statement that the person making them
	is satisfied that the regulations are compatible with the Convention rights.
	The amendment refers only to section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which may be problematic, but it certainly represents progress. At the end of page 8 of its latest report, the Joint Committee says:
	We remain concerned that clause 21(3) of the Civil Contingencies Bill may be interpreted as allowing regulations to be made which would relieve a public authority of its duty under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, with a . . . risk of violating Convention rights.
	Once again, the Committee draws that matter to the attention of the House.
	There is still concern about the Bill's compatibility with the Human Rights Act. New clause 3 proposes a small joint committee of Privy Councillors to consider emergency regulations before they are laid in the House with the aim of achieving consensus, all-party support and scrutiny. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) for proposing such an arrangement on Second Reading. We pursued it in Committee, and its purpose is to provide a quick but effective parliamentary check of proposed emergency powers. In Committee, the Minister for the Cabinet Office was sympathetic to
	the principle of wider consultation with representatives of key parties when emergency powers are to be used.
	He spoke of
	the long-standing convention that the Government should seek in times of serious emergency to build consensus.[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 February 2004; c. 299.]
	He would not, however, accept our amendments. We have therefore revisited the issue in new clause 3 and I hope for a better response this time.
	Given the number of others who wish to speak, there is not time for me to outline each of the other amendments, but all have a bearing on the emergency powers committee, as we call it, and all of them are designed to put into effect a structure whereby the emergency powers committeea joint committeecould have a role and we could bring to the issue of emergency powers that element of consensus.
	The idea behind amendment No. 3 was suggested on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who properly argued that for our normal Standing Orders to apply to the emergency regulations and to have only 90 minutes to debate them is wrong. Although he did not use the words, I would say that that is approaching a constitutional outrage. The Government accepted in Committee that 90 minutes
	is unlikely to be sufficient to debate regulations as important as these will be.[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 February 2004; c. 301.]
	If they think that that is true, they should put their money where their mouth is and introduce the change in the law that we propose.
	Amendments Nos. 74 and 4 are also proportionate measures to prevent the Government from having too much power in these matters.

David Heath: I fully support the intention behind the amendments moved by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). It is more than desirable, it is essential, that at a time of emergency, that the broadest possible consensus in the political sphere and on a wider front be achieved to command the agreement and consent of the British people. The hon. Gentleman suggested one mechanism, but there are others. Making that a requirement means that it is not left to the whim of a Minister of the day to implement proper consultation with all parties, which we would all agree is a desirable state of affairs.
	I will not speak to amendment No. 3 tabled by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), other than to note that my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) thought it right to attach their names in support of it. It is entirely inappropriate that debate of such important regulations in the House should be abbreviated. It is important that we have a proper debate. I hope that the amendment will achieve that and that the Government will see fit to support it.

Douglas Hogg: I shall be very brief and make only four points.
	First, we need to be aware how wide-ranging the powers to make emergency regulations are. Their scope is extensive and is provided for in clause 21. Secondly, we need to keep it in mind that we are discussing emergency regulationsthat is, those that have not been through the parliamentary process. Thirdly, we should keep it in mind that the Ministers thought capable of laying the emergency regulations include very junior onesnamely, Whips. It is extraordinary that Whips should be in a position to lay such draconian provisions before the House.
	I therefore support the purpose behind new clause 3 with this proviso: I would not make the committee a consultative committee. I would make its consent a pre-condition to the emergency regulations being issued. There is much more that I could say, but I do not consider it appropriate that I should at this late hour.

Richard Shepherd: The lateness of the hour and the fact that there are six minutes before a guillotine falls give urgency and emphasis to amendment No. 3, which states that paragraph (1) of House of Commons Standing Order No. 16
	shall not apply to proceedings in the House of Commons under this section.'.
	There is a 90-minute guillotine on such motions and as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and acknowledged by the Government in Committee, 90 minutes would be an unconscionably short time to debate regulations that might touch on some of the most fundamental political and civil liberties that have been at the centre of the life, vitality and purpose of the House over its history.
	Therefore, amendment No. 3, which has all-party support, seeks to remove by statute the recourse that the Government could have to Standing Order No. 16. We now live in a time when even this Bill, which touches on some of our most fundamental liberties, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, does not receive proper scrutiny. We must have the ability to discuss these matters for longer, if that is what the House determines by the will expressed in the course of the debate, and that should be set out in legislation. I become cynical and distressed because of the way in which even on this important measure, under the guillotine, Back Benchers have not been remotely able to make a contribution on the areas of part 2 that are fundamental to the purpose of many of us.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am grateful to hon. Members for trying to make their important points briefly and I hope to address each of them in the very short time that is left to me.
	The Government are sympathetic to the principle of wider consultation with representatives of key parties, which is inherent in new clause 3, if emergency powers are to be used, but we do not believe that the proposed mechanism is the appropriate or best way of going about conducting that process. The House is aware that there is a long-standing convention that the Government will seek in times of serious emergency to build consensus across the political spectrum. The Prime Minister regularly briefs senior figures from all the major political parties on a Privy Council basis. The Government's commitment to that approach was most recently demonstrated in relation to the conflict in Iraq. That tried and tested procedure allows the Government to take the views of senior parliamentary figures in a flexible and efficient way that is tailored to the needs of the situation at hand. It is our view that continuing with that tried and tested procedure is a more appropriate way to ensure that the collecting of opinion is properly done.
	Of course, we know that we will use the part 2 powers only in moments of extreme emergency. Establishing a pre-set committee may create greater delay, and we need the most flexible possible way to achieve what is needed. That is why we are anxious to avoid a proposal that could delay response efforts without adding anything to the process. Unnecessary delay in situations in which lives may be at stake would be unacceptable.
	Hon. Members have raised concernsthey are largely dealt with in later amendmentsabout the impact on human rights of other constitutional matters that could arise as a result of the regulations. We have sought to take into account the concerns of the House, and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) was kind enough to refer to Government amendment No. 93, which seeks to make that clear. We believe that it would be impossible to amend the Human Rights Act 1998 through the regulations that we propose.
	I understand hon. Members' concerns about the length of time provided for debate, but it is unfair to make much of the fact that very junior Ministers might be in a position to move regulations; the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire knows perfectly well that they will be acting as Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and that there are clear routines around which they could carry out that function. Fundamentally, the regulations are to be proposed by Secretaries of State and senior Ministers of the Crown.
	There is a key point, however, about properly debating the regulations, and I understand why the Opposition are seeking to amend the Standing Orders of the House to guarantee a long enough and proper debate. It is clearly unacceptable to expect to be able to amend regulations in a 90-minute debate. That 90-minute period is established

It being Nine o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [19 January].
	The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 278.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [19 January].
	Government amendments Nos. 78 to 99 agreed to.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The result of the guillotine imposed on the Bill has been that six new clauses, one new schedule and 87 amendmentsincluding important Government amendmentshave not been reached or debated. You will know that the Opposition voted against the programme motion. Would it be possible for you to report this matter to the Chairman of Ways and Meanswho is called upon from time to time to give evidence about the effect of programming to Committees such as the Procedure Committeeto ensure that he is fully apprised of the disaster that has occurred today?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We are following the provisions of the programme motion to which the House agreed. I have no doubt, however, that the Chairman of Ways and Means will read the hon. Gentleman's comments in Hansard.

Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the conclusion of the Report stage, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), was unable to complete either her sentence or her speech, but it sounded as though she was about to make an important announcement. Although it may not have happened often, I believe that there is a precedent for two Ministers speaking at the beginning of a Third Reading debate. Would it be possible for the Under-Secretary to complete her speech before the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety moves the Third Reading of the Bill? It really is a sadnessI do not want to use a pejorative wordthat the Under-Secretary was unable to complete her speech at the previous stage.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The issue is entirely up to the Ministers concerned.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contribution to the development of the legislation. The principles of the Bill command the broad support of all parties, and I am genuinely grateful to hon. Members for the constructive and sensible way in which the Bill has been scrutinised and debated.
	As I said at the outset, a joint Committee subjected the Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny, and two public consultations have taken place. When the Bill was introduced on 7 January, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is unfortunately not with us this evening, said that it was stronger as a result of the pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am sure that hon. Members share that view.
	The Bill's subject matter is not party political, and all hon. Members have been keen to examine possible improvements and to make sure that that process is rigorous and evidence basedwe all agree that it is important to get the Bill right. The Bill deals with serious issues, particularly given the heightened threat from terrorism that we all currently face. Although we have occasionally disagreed on the detail, I hope that we all support the broad thrust of the Bill.
	As the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on Second Reading, the legislation's purpose is clear. The aim of the Bill and its accompanying non-legislative measures is the delivery of a single framework for civil protection in the United Kingdom that will hopefully meet the challenges of the 21st centuryin some cases, the legislation that is being replaced dates back 80 years. The Bill establishes a proper framework, which will hopefully last for a similar length of time.
	We are all familiar with the challenges. Recent events have shown how emergencies can disrupt our way of life, damaging human welfare, the environment and national security. Even now, the events of 11 September 2001 are still fresh in many people's minds, but so are the fuel crisis, foot and mouth and the floods of 2000. The floods of 2000, which predated 11 September, were the catalyst for the emergency planning review, which was set in train by the Deputy Prime Minister and provided the foundations for the legislation.
	The Bill will end our reliance on legislation dating from the first half of the last century, which has stood us in good stead but is increasingly unsuitable in today's world. Modernisation is timelysome hon. Members disagree with some of the modernising measures that the Government have introducedbut I am glad that the Bill has all-party support.

Lembit �pik: Devolution is one element of modernisation, and I note the marked difference in responsibilities and authority between Scotland and Wales. Does the Minister feel it appropriate that Wales will effectively have less autonomy to make decisions relating to the Bill, after the Bill is enacted? Does she have a view on the need for a little more devolution to Wales on such matters?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raises devolution. We had an interesting debate on devolution, in which one right hon. Member, who is not in his place, sought to undo the devolution settlement. The provisions relating to Scotland and Wales mirror the devolution settlement, which is why the Scottish provisions discuss action taken by Ministers, who are clearly separate from the legislature in Scotland, whereas the Welsh provisions concern consultation and deliberation with the Assembly, reflecting the different tenor of the devolution settlement in those two countries.
	On Report, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that the relationship with Wales is important. Matters that have been devolved to Wales, such as health and transport, are key to making sure that the response to civil contingencies is accurate, integrated and coherent, and the relationship with Wales will continue to be important.

Oliver Heald: Of course, we did not have a chance to discuss amendments Nos. 93 and 94, which the Government introduced following discussions in Committee on the role that they should play in terms of emergency powers to restore the Government and the declaration on human rights. I hope that the Minister will say a word about each amendment.

Hazel Blears: I will certainly do my best to cover all the areas that are dealt with by the Bill, because I recognise that we did not have time to deal with issues that are important to Members.
	It is right that the legislation should tackle the local and national levels. Part 1 will ensure that the framework for planning at the local levelalready strong in many respectsis brought on to a more consistent basis. It enshrines the concept of integrated emergency management, which is that emergencies should be considered along a spectrum rather than being planned for in isolation. That is a departure from the Civil Defence Act 1939, and the analysis has drawn wide support from civil emergency protection practitioners. The Bill will deliver clear roles and responsibilities for local responders, and local communities across the country will see the benefit.
	The renewal of the emergency powers framework in part 2 is equally important. The Emergency Powers Act 1920 has served the UK well in times of national crisis, but it was last used more than 20 years ago and it has reached the end of its natural life. The fundamentals of the legislation remain the samean ability rapidly to make temporary legislation for the purpose of dealing with the most serious of emergenciesbut the Bill offers a more flexible, deployable and resilient model with stronger safeguards and better procedures than the original legislation.
	Nevertheless, we are all conscious of the difficult balance to be struck in these matters. I recognise how strongly Members felt about that in Committee and it is perhaps a pity that we have not had chance to debate them, but clearly Members

Douglas Hogg: Whose fault is that?

Hazel Blears: There were no knives in the programme motion, and Members could have sought to prioritise whichever amendments they wanted to. Perhaps we could have had more focused debates on the other amendments. Then we would have had a chance to consider other parts of the Bill.

David Taylor: It has been put to me by a constituent who is a member of the human aspects group of the Emergency Planning Society that the definition of emergency is not sufficiently broad. Throughout the Bill, emergency is an event that presents a serious threat to human welfare and is explained in terms of loss of life, illness or injury. She tells me, and I put it to the Minister, that there needs to be much more of a
	recognition that human welfare also includes human suffering (social and psychological) both in the short term and longer term.
	Does the Minister agree that the Bill deals with that adequately, and therefore that the definition of emergency is sufficiently broad?

Hazel Blears: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but human welfare is a broad term that can encompass physical welfare, but which may have an impact on people's emotional, mental and psychological well-being. The definition was subjected to a lot of debate during pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, one thing that Members across the House are pleased about is the fact that the reference in the original definition to a threat to economic, administrative and political stability was taken out because people felt it could perhaps be misused under a particularly ill-inclined Government.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend write to me on this matter?

Hazel Blears: I shall take advice on the breadth of the definition. My instinct is that it could cover the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend, but I am happy to write to him.
	We are conscious of the difficult balance to be struck and we recognise the sincere and heartfelt concerns of many in the House about the need to ensure that robust safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of emergency powers. We have made important changes to the Bill to meet those concerns as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny and during consideration in Committee and on Report, and especially in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and the operation of the Bill alongside the Human Rights Act 1998.
	Members were concerned about whether it would be possible to use the Bill to amend the Human Rights Act, but my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office made his statement of compatibility with that Act when he signed off the Bill and when he referred to this in Committee. I hope that Members will accept that assurance.
	Hon. Members have also taken the opportunity to use the debates to air other points of concern, both about the specifics of the Bill and the Government's wider civil contingencies and counter-terrorism work. We have had some useful discussions, and I hope that we have offered full explanations of our position. We tried to provide as much information as possible during the debates, and I hope that hon. Members have found that helpful in informing our deliberations.

Nigel Evans: But can the hon. Lady assure us that in all the training that will be necessary for the public, institutions and organisations, the resources will not be wanting? I am talking specifically about local authorities, which will want to take lead roles, as they will be required to do under the Bill as enacted. Can she assure the House that they will get the resources necessary to ensure that the training takes place?

Hazel Blears: If the hon. Gentleman had been present during the previous considerationI make no criticism of him for thathe would have heard that we had a robust discussion about the funding position for responders. Clearly, I made the point that in the last seven years, the civil defence grant has increased by 31 per cent., whereas in the last seven years of the previous Administration, it decreased by 42 per cent. I entirely acknowledge that local government has concerns about additional pressures. That is why we are in discussions with it now. I have said clearly that there must be a proper business case, properly set out, for any increase, but clearly, we will try to consider those matters properly within the spending review settlement for 2004. I also ask Members to take into account the fact that local government has received substantial real terms increases over the past few years in its basic revenue support grant settlements. In that overall funding context, I take on board the idea that we need to try to resolve any genuine issues so that people can do the job properly that we ask them to do.

David Heath: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears: Not unless it is on a similar point.
	I want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about the Human Rights Act 1998. As I understand it, section 6 clearly states that should Her Majesty or a Minister make regulations that are incompatible with the convention rights, that would be unlawful, so it is not necessary to provide for that in the Bill.

Oliver Heald: I have already quoted from the eighth report of the Joint Committee. The hon. Lady has acknowledged that there is a point in amendment No. 93which, unfortunately, we did not reachmeaning that the Minister must make a statement before making regulations that they are compatible with section 1 of the Human Rights Act.

Hazel Blears: Yes, I suppose that it could be a belt and braces provision. There is merit in requiring the maker of the regulations to give a clear statement that the regulations are compatible, because given the exceptional nature of emergency regulations, it is appropriate to make exceptional provision. The Human Rights Act does not require a statement of compatibility in relation to secondary legislation, but such emergency legislation is likely to include provisions that at non-emergency times would be included in primary rather than secondary legislation.

David Heath: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: I am anxious for other Members to be able to make a contribution to this debate. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall press on. I have given way a great deal.
	I hope that we have developed the Bill in an open and consultative way. I want to pay tribute to the organisations that have made that possible by getting involved with the consultation. Practitioners such as chief officers of police, fire and local government, the Emergency Planning Society and pressure groups such as Liberty and Justice have helped us to develop the Bill in a proper fashion. We have benefited from the active engagement of thousands of individual civil protection professionals, and I hope that they have helped us to develop a Bill that is both principled and practicable.
	The process of pre-legislative scrutiny helped to ensure that the Bill that was introduced in January was much stronger than it would otherwise have been. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) for his work in chairing that committee, and for the contribution from Members of all parties. We have not, I am sure, resolved every issue, but we have a Bill that delivers our aim, and that has stood up to parliamentary scrutiny thus far. We are sending this Bill to the other place in good shape, although their lordships will doubtless wish to review many of the issues that we have discussed. In particular, we can look forward to their experience being brought to bear on some of the technical aspects of the Bill, as well as on fundamental questions about the balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the community.
	This is important legislation. The Acts that we are replacing are, in parts, more than 80 years old, and for us, as legislators and representatives, the safety and well-being of the people of the United Kingdom is the highest priority. I think the Bill is a substantial step towards progress in that direction, and I commend it to the House.

Oliver Heald: I will not speak for long, because others wish to speak as well.
	Let me begin by saying what a disgrace it is that we have lost the chance to debate six new clauses, one new schedule and 87 amendments. That really is not good enough. We voted against the programme motion; as a result of the Government's insistence on their programme, we have been unable to debate some very important matters. We have said from the outset that the Bill is overdue, and that our response to emergencies at local and national level should be provided for in a modern Bill. The measures in part 2 allow Ministers wide discretion to make emergency regulations, but protection for human rights is still inadequate.
	I welcome amendment No. 93, which does at least ensure that the Minister must issue a certificate when making regulations stating that they are compatible with section 1 of the Human Rights Act. We argued for that in Committee, and I think we are entitled to take some credit for having moved the Minister on it. I note from its latest report that the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomes it too, describing it as a step in the right direction.

Douglas Hogg: A step.

Oliver Heald: A step, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. The Committee says:
	We welcome these moves, which serve significantly to improve the safeguards for Convention rights under the Bill.
	However, it also says:
	We remain concerned that clause 21(3) of the Civil Contingencies Bill may be interpreted as allowing regulations to be made which would relieve a public authority of its duty
	to which the Minister has just referred
	under section 6.
	It is that concern that we continue to express.

Douglas Hogg: Under the emergency regulations, for example, property can be confiscated without compensation. That flies in the face of the relevant article.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. and learned Friend will have noted that amendments were tabled on compensation and the costs of compliance. I know that he would have wanted to speak if we had reached that group.
	Although we welcome the structure of the Bill and the duties placed on local authorities and other responders, we question whether enough has been done to protect human rights, and to make a practical reality of the necessary response to an emergency. We called for a volunteer reserve to deal with emergencies, and we have debated that today. I believe that there is a mood in all parts of the House in favour of a greater role for volunteers, and the Government should have conceded the point.
	We called for proper public information and training. The Government seem to be moving on thatall too slowly, but I predict that they will produce a booklet for every household in due course, setting out some of the threats and some of the necessary information. [Interruption.] I am told that they will have to do so, now that I have predicted it. It is a pity that a Minister could not just stand up at the Dispatch Box and say, Yes, we will be doing that. We would have liked to see a senior Minister in charge of homeland security and the response to terrorism, rather than the current Home Office/Cabinet Office/Ministry of Defence mishmash.
	It is true that we have seen some improvements in the Bill as a result of the Committee stagefor instance, the provisions on cross-border issues and on not treating the protection of Government activities as an emergency in itself, the improved drafting in clauses 1, 2 and 18 on the meaning of emergencyalthough there was more to discussand of course amendment No. 93, which improves protection for human rights.
	At the end of our deliberations in Committee, I said that we had not had a sausage from the Government. Perhaps by now we have had a cocktail chipolata; none the less, there is more work to do in the other place. [Interruption.] I am told that they do not have cocktail chipolatas in Wales, and I believe it; perhaps I should have said a lamb chop.
	On Second Reading, I said that there was much in the Bill to probe, challenge and improve. There is also much in the Bill to welcome, and we have made limited progress in trying to improve it. However, there is a lot still to do and the battle will go on elsewhere. Many of the matters that we have been unable to discuss tonight will be returned to in another place: the issues dealt with in new clauses 4, 6, 7 and 9; the important issues of ministerial responsibility, compensation and what really constitutes an emergency; procedure; human rights; and the question of emergency co-ordinators being competent people for the task.

Peter Bottomley: To those who expected the House to have lengthier debates on these issues, it is worth emphasising the importance of the leaflet to which my hon. Friend referred, and of the Minister's description of the serious issues being considered. In doing so, we should consider the ministerial answer that she gavemy hon. Friend will have seen itconcerning feedback on Home Office guidance on mass fatalities. That is serious information, and in the light of the Government's concern about how people should respond to mass fatalities, in terms of coroners and the disposal of bodies, we begin to understand why this Bill and the debate matters, and why the debate in the other place will matter even more than ours, given that we have been unable to go through everything in detail.

Oliver Heald: I agree with my hon. Friend. These are very serious issues, and it is wrong that the House of Commons should be unable to debate them in the detail that they deserve. For my part, I would nevertheless find it impossible to vote against a measure that establishes for future emergencies a new structure with which I agree. This is the sort of dilemma that one sometimes faces: on the one hand, the Bill does some good things, but on the other, we as an Opposition have not been treated as we should have been.

Lewis Moonie: I shall be very brief. This important Bill provides for the long overdue updating of two Government functionsthe making of emergency legislation, and the planning framework for dealing with disasterand it will create the conditions for an effective and resilient planning network in dealing with emergencies. As Chairman of the Joint Committee, I examined the Bill before it was introduced, and I congratulate the Government on having listened to the points that we made. The fact that the report was unanimous indicates why the Government felt it necessary to take proper cognisance of it, and they have indeed moved a long way. The Opposition will doubtless stress in the other place their argument that many important matters are still to be decided, but in my view the important matters were decided in the Joint Committee and the Government listened to us. It should be recognised that definitions and safeguards have been strengthened in important areas.
	I accept that we are not going to agree on the question of the need for a single Minister to run things. I take the view that when one needs a multi-agency response to disasters, it is a great mistake to concentrate on one area. However, I want to stress the need for a proper audit of the process that we are about to undertake. Such an audit would ensure that the Government's wishes are properly carried out, rather than lip service simply being paid to them, and it would ensure that best practice is disseminated as quickly and effectively as possible once bright ideas had been made. I do not believe that the way to proceed is necessarily to have a separate Ministry or a plethora of national committees, which would actually reduce resilience. What is important is to get the process under way and to look at it carefully. I still believe that an independent inspector would be the best way to achieve proper scrutiny of what the Government are about to do, but perhaps that issue is best dealt with in another place.
	It is nearly three years since the dreadful attack on the twin towers. It is high time we got down to proper planning. The Bill makes a sound start, but no more than that. There is still a lot of work to do.

Richard Allan: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who did an excellent job in chairing an effective Joint Committee. One could not tell the party allegiance of the members of the Committee because they engaged with the issues. They were not partisan, which is entirely appropriate for pre-legislative scrutiny. In this forum, we tend to adopt a slightly more partisan approach. I will not engage in too much of a love-in with the Government in view of their changes to the Bill, for fear of upsetting the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was upset at the beginning of our proceedings today.
	We had different concerns about parts 1 and 2. We are disappointed that we have not discussed the part 2 issues, which are of greater concern to Liberal Democrats than the part 1 issues because they deal with fundamental liberties and the way in which the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom works.
	On part 1, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the service as a Cinderella service. The Minister has done an admirable job today in picking up the brief but, in defending the Government's position, she said that they gave lots of extra money for the civil defence grant. She neglected to tell us that they did so only in the face of a legal challenge to the Government by local authorities. It was not a willing move and the trend was clearly of central Government wishing to cut funding.
	The Government were forced into offering additional funding. The climate in local authorities and, importantly, in business is all about cutting margins and not doing things that are not strictly necessary. We must be honest. We will face a charge of hypocrisy if we will the ends but not the means. We must be realistic about the difficult climate that we face.
	On part 2, our concerns were about the locks and the way in which the definitions work. That is now much clearer, particularly following the work of the Joint Committee and the response to that. We were also concerned about compatibility with the European convention on human rights. Although we did not have a chance to debate it today, I am pleased that the Government tabled amendment No. 93 in response to concerns expressed in Standing Committee to ensure that certification takes place.
	Our concern is the risk of abuse of these sweeping powers by a future Government, which should concern all of us as constitutional democratic politicians. It is right that we tried to explore that as best we could.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to scrutiny and the comments in relation to audit. Does he believe, as I do, that the sanctions that are available in respect of regions and authorities that are not evidencing a high standard of planning and preparedness are not exactly clear, or indeed very enforceable?

Richard Allan: Sanctions are set out. There is a monitoring regime in clause 9 and a sanctions regime in clause 10, but the hon. Gentleman is right. Once the regulations have been introduced, that is one of the things that we will have to explore to find out exactly what will happen if a local authority fails to deliver. I think that we will all want to ask that.
	It is a shame that we get the framework but not the important detail when we discuss primary legislation. I understand why that is, but there has been a gap in respect of the way in which local government will implement the measure. Sadly, we have been unable to fill that gap. We needed more debating time to go through that.
	I am sure that more concerns will be raised in the House of Lords, particularly on issues to do with human rights law. There are far more expert voices than mine there. I know that many of my colleagues will want to engage with that issue and I trust that they will do an excellent job.
	As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, the question that faces us is difficult: what do we do with the Bill tonight? We are equally disappointed that we have not had time to debate it further, but I do not think that we would argue that it should not go forward. The question is: is it better than the status quo? Our colleagues in the other place can tighten the legal framework. On the basis that we trust them to do that, we are content that the Bill should go to the House of Lords.
	As I say, we are disappointed that we have not been able to manage our time in such a way that we had longer to debate things. We welcomed some of the amendments that were introduced today. We expected to welcome them in short order. We ended up welcoming them over a longer period than we expected, particularly the Scottish amendment that began the proceedings. It is regrettable that we did not get on to the questions about part 2. The long time it took to debate earlier amendments is part of the reason for that.
	We will now have to leave it to colleagues in another place to deal with them. Our intention tonight, however, is not to stop the Bill going forward, because it is better than the status quo.

Elfyn Llwyd: It was mentioned earlier that the Bill was improved by proceedings in the pre-legislative Committee. In fact, when the Bill was in that mode, one provision said that Ministers in this place had to liaise over emergencies with those in the National Assemblyexcept in cases of urgency. I found that quite ridiculousI do not know of any emergency that has no element of urgency to itbut it was changed. As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said, much more needs to be done. That is a fair summation of where we are now.
	We have not had an opportunity to discuss the jurisdiction of the courts, compensation, human rights or, interestingly, the definition of an emergency. The Minister said that Liberty had assisted her and her colleagues during the passage of the Bill. I tabled a string of amendments today, which I had hoped would be dealt with. They were important amendments on the definition of an emergencythe core matter in the Bill.
	Many of us spent considerable time in the pre-legislative set-up and subsequently in Committee debating the Bill, and I honestly feel angry about today's guillotine. I know that the voluntary sector, which gave copious evidence to the pre-legislative Committee, feels that it has been taken for a ride. Hardly any of its recommendations were considered for long and they were certainly not agreed to. For the first time in my 13 years in the House, I believe that I have been taken for a ride as well.

Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said that the fight would go on. The fact is that we have not had a proper discussion of the most important part of the Bill, which affects our civil and political liberties. That is what it is all about. The House has not divided properly over the part 1 contentions of the Bill that there should be proper structures and arrangements for the civil defence of this country.
	Intelligent discussion has taken place in Committee and on the Floor of the House, but as a result of the guillotine we have considered only four groups of amendments. We have not touched on part 2 at all, so we have not debated the scope of emergency regulations, the jurisdiction of the courts or the duration of the provisions. Ministerial responsibility, compensation and costs of compliance, the definition of an emergencynone of them has been discussed. All those matters are of great concern to many people outside the House and to many Members within it. Other issues include miscellaneous and consequential amendments, civil protection regulations procedure and what is called human rightsthough I believe that it should be civil and political rights.
	This democratically elected House has debated none of those issues. Because of the guillotine, it cannot debate such fundamental considerations as the scope of emergency regulations. We never touched on that in our debates, but I have profound misgivings about the scope of some of the regulations. Under clause 21(3),
	Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; in particular, regulations may . . . provide for or enable the requisition of confiscation of property (with or without compensation); . . . provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation).
	That is a fundamental contention affecting human rights. There it is on the face of the Bill, giving powers to a Ministerwe shall return to that in a momentto do away with things without compensation. We did not debate that issue.
	Who can make such powers to prescribe emergency regulations? Her Majesty the Queen may do so through an Order in Council if she is satisfied that certain conditions are met.
	So may a senior Minister of the Crown. However, that part of the Bill includes in the definition of senior Minister of the Crown,
	the First Lord of the Treasury (the Prime Minister) . . . any of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and . . . the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.
	[Interruption.] I hear the Whips cheering their own elevation to the status of senior Minister. We did not discuss that provision, but I would have liked to hear the justifications for why a Whip should become a senior Minister for the purposes of the Bill. If the provision were intended to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a role, as the Second Lord of the Treasury, I would have gladly supported it. But to suggest that Whips who never speak, have no departmental experience and do not make decisions should be able to sign the order for a regulation is, on the face of it, outrageous. They do not have the experience, the weight or the authority to convey to the British public the fact that the issue is so serious and such a matter of principle that it is necessary to move regulations of great importance to our liberties and freedoms.
	As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said, the Bill has some good aspects. That is not in dispute. We do need better co-ordinated emergency services, and that is agreed on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill's deficiencies could be dealt with in the other place, but every Member of Parliament will have to tell their constituents how their property could be confiscated without compensation. We will have to tell our constituents why regulations that touch on our freedom from arbitrary arrest and the right to trial could be suspended by statutory instrumentnot even primary legislationand how that could be done with only 90 minutes of discussion. We tabled an amendment to suspend Standing Order No. 16, which limits debate to 90 minutes, but of course we have not reached it.
	For the reasons I have given, I am in the invidious position of having to say that I will vote against this measure. I know that the Government's majority will be marshalled to vote for the Bill, as it is for whatever the Government produce and would be for any regulations made under the Bill. But how can I trust the Government when they have reduced debate to such a trivial function of this House and we cannot discuss the very things that we are sent here to discuss? I will vote against this Bill.

Douglas Hogg: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has said. Like him, I wish to focus on part 2 of the Bill. I am prepared to accept that there is much of merit in part 1, but I have focused on part 2 and, indeed, that is what I addressed on Second Reading. It is regrettable that part 2, which concerns most people most, has hardly been touched on at Report stage. The Bill will go to the other place with part 2 largely undiscussed.
	The truth is that part 2 strikes at many of the rights that we value. To start with, the definition of emergency is extraordinarily wide. It includes the threat to a single life, interruption to fuel supplies, interruption to the railways and many other factors. They would all trigger the powers in the Bill, and those powers are astonishingly wide. For example, my hon. Friend mentioned the power to confiscate property without any form of compensation. Other powers include the power to impose curfews, to prohibit demonstrations and assemblies, and to prohibit political debate and public meetings.
	Those are very widespread and draconian powers.
	Oddly enough, the Bill does not contain a power to prohibit industrial action, which might be thought to be a useful power. Ministers may not prohibit industrial action, but they may prohibit political assemblies called to protest against that industrial action. That is a bizarre state of affairs.
	My hon. Friend, who is not a former Whip, also complained about the fact that very junior MinistersWhipswill have the powers to make emergency regulations. I share his concern. I was a Whip, and I know perfectly well that Whips know absolutely nothing about the functions of Departments, so when they state that they are satisfied as to this, that or the other, they are exclusively reliant on the advice of officials about matters of which they themselves are wholly ignorant. I regard that as an extraordinary and undesirable state of affairs.
	I also object to the fact that there is no proper attempt to get consensus behind the emergency regulations. My colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), sensibly tabled new clause 3, the object of which was to try to muster some consensus behind the emergency powers. His concept was a consultative committee, but I want something more than thata majority within the committee as a necessary precondition to laying the emergency regulations, which by definition have excluded the parliamentary process.
	I hope that when the Bill goes to the other place, their lordships' House will consider that issue again. Their lordships also need to focus on the question of human rights. It would be churlish not to recognise that amendment No. 93 seeks to address the human rights question, but I am not at all sure whether that is a judicable issue. The Minister has to issue a certificate to the effect that he or she is satisfied that the convention rights are protected, but it is not clear to me whether the courts can challenge that certificate. That is a matter that the House has a right to address.
	In the conventionI believe that it is in the first protocolwe find the right to property. We also find the right to free speech, free assembly and so on. Yet those rights can be directly excluded by the clause 21 powers given, in principle, to Whips. We need to know whether those powers are subject to the courts' jurisdiction.
	I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. Perhaps this is a Bill that, at the end of the day, should be supportedbut it is clear that the House is not now in a position to make that judgment, because we have not had ample time to debate it. We could have done so. Next week is a light week, and the rest of this week, too, is pretty light. Had the Government wished part 2 to be properly debated, there was ample time. Speaking for myself as an individual, I consider that a sufficient reason to vote against the Bill, so if anybody calls No to its Third Reading, I shall be pleased to join them in that protest.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 0.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Criminal Law

That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Conditional Cautions: Code of Practice) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Human Fertilisation And Embryology

That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That the Occupational Pensions Schemes (Winding Up and Deficiency on Winding Up etc.) (Amendments) Regulations 2004 (S.I.,2004,No.403), dated 23rd February 2004, and the Occupational Pensions Schemes (Winding Up) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (S.I.,2004,No.1140), dated 19th April 2004, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Bristol International Airport

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Liam Fox: I am extremely grateful to have the chance to raise the important issue of the transport infrastructure surrounding the proposed expansion of Bristol International airport. I should like at the outset to express my thanks to the Parish Councils Airport Association, which represents 23 of the local parish councils and which has been extraordinarily helpful to me in my preparation for this debate.
	It would be quite improper to go too much into the history of the development at Lulsgate. Suffice it to say that a very large body of opinion in my constituency has always felt that Filton is a more logical place for development, as it is situated between two motorways and has railway access to hand. That said, we are where we are. The development at Bristol has been successful from the airport's point of view; it has good facilities in the new terminal, a skilled and committed work force and ambitious management. Notwithstanding the problems that I shall refer to, those of us who have used the airport would be hypocritical if we did not welcome the increased access that it gives us to business destinations in particular.
	Since the new terminal was developed at Bristol, there has been a massive expansion in low-cost airlines, an increase in demand and an increase in passenger numbers, and we now see the Government's proposed expansion of the regional airports. There is a major problem with the expansion of Bristol airport: the local road infrastructure is barely able to cope with current passenger numbers, never mind the large predicted number of passengers who would come with further expansion.
	At the risk of boring the vast attendance in the House, I wish to point out one or two of the specific road details that are important.
	There are no quick and easy routes to Bristol airport from the motorway network. Times vary from 20 minutes at bestit would be a very good best, I have to sayto at least an hour or two. The shortest and most direct route from the motorway network would be via a road link from the M5 at junction 20 at Clevedon, but it would be 8 miles long and have to cross open low country of high ecological landscape value. The vast majority of my constituents would be utterly opposed to that.
	More reliable access is available from the M5 south from junction 22 at Burnham, which is a 15 mile journey to the airport, or from junction 21 at Weston, which is a 9 mile journey. Both pass through areas with roadside communities and small villages with speed restrictions. From the M4 north near the M32, the distance is 14 miles. That route crosses the centre of the city of Bristol, and times vary from at best half an hour to up to two hours depending on traffic. Hence traffic is signed to the airport via the M4-M5 box, which is itself very busy and congested, particularly at Almondsbury and Cribb's Causeway. Anyone who has attempted to go down the M5 on a bank holiday weekend will realise what a nightmare that stretch of the motorway can be.
	The M5 north and the M4 west traffic is signed via junction 18Avonmouth and Portwayor people can use junction 19 at Gordano. Either route is very busy and congested at peak hours. There is also congestion when passing through the A38 Winterstoke road or the A38-A370 link at Barrow Gurney, which, although a small village with a single-lane road through the middle, is one of the main thoroughfares for those seeking access to the A38 on the airport approach.
	If those roads are very difficult, there are other potential access routes from the A37 via Chew Magna, Winford and Felton, again through a single-lane road in the middle of a rural village. On the other side, the increased traffic from the A370 via Brockley Coombe is resulting in increased road damage. That is an area where, as several of my constituents have pointed out, accidents are waiting to happen. Mr. Geoff Smith wrote to me to say that
	the levels of traffic are continually increasing along roads that are inadequate for the size of the vehicles and poorly maintained, all adding to the noise. The local lanes are being used as 'rat runs' to avoid the congestion on the main roads . . . Fuel tankers to the airport now use Downside Road/Brockley Coombe, this road was never built for this type of traffic. It is a miracle that there has been no serious accident.
	Mrs. Valerie Blake says:
	The road surface . . . is breaking up, there are no pavements and no lighting. The banks have been eroded away with the traffic and there are ditches along the side of the road. In my opinion an accident waiting to happen.
	That is a commonly held view in the area.
	The only other access is from Bath near the A366 through the village of Bishop Sutton, where I live, and through the villages of Blagdon and Harptree. That is utterly unsuitable given the traffic that we already have.
	Bristol airport estimates that passenger growth will rise from 4 million at present to between 7 million and 9 million by 2015. Assessing vehicle traffic growth for each increase of 500,000 passengers, and assuming that 20 per cent. travel by coach and 80 per cent. by car, it is estimated that that will lead to an extra 25 coaches and 1,000 other vehicles per day. That is equivalent to an extra 200 coaches and 8,000 cars per day on the basis of an increase from 4 million to 8 million passengers per year at the airport. I understand that the current indicationsno doubt the Minister has better data than I doare that two thirds of the airport traffic approaches from the north and one third from the south, although that may change with time.
	An increase of that order could possibly just be accommodated on the A38 southit would mean an extra 18,000 vehicles a day. However, it would be utterly impossible on the A38 north, because it would overload it with an extra 26,000 vehicles per day. That would be extremely distressing for the village of Barrow Gurney, which would completely seize up unless traffic were diverted elsewhere, because it could not accommodate an extra 15,000 or 17,000 vehicles per day.
	What can be done? The M4 and the M5 around Bristol are already heavily congested at peak times and holiday periods. The A38 and the A370 are becoming increasingly busy and congested at peak times. Barrow Gurney village already suffers heavily from airport-related traffic and could not accommodate the predicted growth effectively. We await the result of the Greater Bristol strategic transport study, but access to Bristol airport is not good. A local village bypass of Barrow Gurney, possibly through the A38-A370 link road, is especially needed and every effort should be made to reduce pressure on access from the north.
	Other villages that suffer access pressures, such as Banwell, should also be relieved. The problems of access through the Chew valley should be recognised. It would be a tragedy if a spot of outstanding natural beauty and tourist importance was utterly destroyed because of the attempts of traffic to get through an inadequate network to Bristol airport.
	A short Adjournment debate is not the place to deal with the other issues that relate to the expansion of the airport. I shall simply say that the potential expansion of the runwayan extension that would diminish the size of Felton commonis unacceptable. When the new terminal was created, we were led to believe that the system would provide for greater business traffic and reduce dependency on overnight and cheap holiday charter traffic. If the promise were broken and the runway extended, it would be a betrayal of the good will that many people in the area showed when the new terminal was being created.
	I can best summarise the position through the comments of Mr. Bob Hatherly, a constituent who lives in the village of Yatton. He wrote:
	Access to the areaI could write you a book on the problems but nothing is being done to improve the situation and because of the airport's location very little can or will be done, and at what cost, and who will pay? Not the airport I guess, Council Tax payers. Well there's a surprise!!
	We look to the Government to provide some solutions to a complex problem. They have clear policy objectives on regional airport expansion, but Bristol airport cannot expand, because of the limitations of its infrastructure, without severely reducing the quality of life of those who live in the surrounding towns and villages.
	I look forward to the Under-Secretary's comments because the matter is important and causes increasing anxiety to many of my constituents.

Tony McNulty: I congratulate the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on securing the debate on an issue that is important not only to his constituency but the wider region. As he rightly says, the White Paper acknowledges, among other things, the importance of regional airports to their local economies and the importance of links to London and elsewhere. Given that Bristol airport is the largest airport in the south-west, I recognise that its importance to residents as well as the economy of the region is paramount, as he suggested.
	With passenger throughput almost doubling to nearly 4 million per annum between 2000 and 2003, the impact of access to the airport is becoming a concern to local communities on the affected routes, many of which are in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I appreciate the strong local opposition to the impact of the significant increase in traffic. I listened carefully to his case.
	In responding, I want to examine the likely role for Bristol International airport as set out in the White Paper, which was presented last December, and the Government's actions to deal with the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in relation to airport access.
	Ensuring easy and reliable access to airports that minimises congestion and other local effects is a key factor in considering any proposal for new airport capacity. The Government expect airport operators to develop appropriate access plans and to contribute to the cost of additional infrastructure or required services. Bristol International airport is actively working to fulfil the Government's requirement to produce a master plan by the end of 2004 to take account of the conclusions on future developments that the White Paper set out.
	The final agreed master plan can then be adopted by the local council as supplementary planning guidance. Indeed, we shall shortly be issuing guidance on what should be in the master plans, as the plan for each regional airport will differ according to the local context. It is right and proper that each airport should come up with a master plan that shows, among other things, the infrastructure needs that follow from its plans for expansion.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the airport is some 8 miles south-west of the city centre and, although the main Bristol to Taunton rail route passes some 3 miles to the north-west of the airport, the difference in levels is about 175 m, making any conventional connection to heavy rail out of the question. He made a general point to the effect that, if we had known we were going to get to this situation, we would not have started from where we did. There are any number of airports to which that applies but, as he rightly says, we are where we are.
	Strategic surface access links to Bristol airport are not as good as they are at many other airports of a similar size in the UK. The hon. Gentleman will clearly see that as an understatement and it is that issue that he is most concerned about. Links to the motorway network, which is some distance away, are via A and B roads that pass through the villages and other built-up areas that he so eloquently described. Consequently, more than 95 per cent. of passengers arrive at the airport via the unimproved A38the majority by private carand either park on-site or nearby, or arrive as drop-offs.
	The second most important mode of transport to and from the airport is the taxi. Bristol International Cars, the major provider, reports an increase of 17 per cent. to March 2004 to 165,518 bookings. Assuming an average of three persons per taxi, this represents some 13 per cent. of arrivals and departures. Obviously, people arriving by taxi do not generally reduce the number of vehicle arrivals at the airport, merely the demand for on-site parking.
	The only significant public transport provision is the Bristol international flyer, which caters for about 4 per cent. of passengers. That coach service operates three times an hour between about 5 am and midnight, commencing at Bristol coach station and calling at Temple Meads and one other stop in south Bristol. By the by, when travelling to Bristol by rail, it is now possible to book a through ticket to the airport on the Bristol international flyer from Temple Meads station. In the 12 months to March 2004, some 140,000 passengers used the flyer to access the airport. While I accept that that was only just over 3.5 per cent. of the air passenger throughput, it represented a 20 per cent. increase over the previous year.
	In keeping with other airports, Bristol has set itself a target to increase public transport arrivals, in its case, by 5 per cent. above the growth in passenger numbers. Since the latter increased by 11 per cent. to March 2004, that target was met for the last financial year, which the airport is, in part, to be congratulated on. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Bristol city council has integrated the flyer with its showcase bus route, which provides significant bus priority measures in south Bristol as well as real-time information. The flyer has been re-routed to take advantage of the improved infrastructure.
	As a result of the on-site constraints on land available for car parking, there are certain periods during the year when the on-site car park nears capacity. The hon. Gentleman is obviously aware that certain local landowners have seized the opportunity to provide long-term parking for the airport at rates that are very competitive compared with those for on-site parking. That is viewed as unhelpful in terms of encouraging the use of public transport. North Somerset council has recently been successful in taking action to close one site and is pursuing a similar action against the others. If those actions are successful, it should result in an increase in the mode share arriving by public transport, because the cost of parking on site will increase and the on-site constraints will mean that the number of parking spaces is unlikely to increase at the same rate as passenger growth.
	Although everyone accepts that the increase in air travel provides a welcome boost to the local economy, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that it brings attendant traffic problems. However, there is some evidence that the airport operator's access policy is beginning to have an impact, in that despite an 11 per cent. increase in passengers in the year to March 2004, vehicle arrivals increased by only 9 per cent. However, I fully accept what he says about the poor transport infrastructure, particularly the road links.

Liam Fox: Earlier in his remarks, the Minister said that his Department would shortly advise local authorities on the plan and planning guidance. As a point of principle, will he accept that it makes no sense to encourage airport expansion until transport infrastructure has been addressed? The current approach will exacerbate the situation. Will his Department take that factor into account when it issues guidance to local authorities?

Tony McNulty: I am grateful for that intervention. In many cases, the approach depends on the airport. In cases such as Bristol, I freely admit that, in seeking a master plan and asking the airport to implement the provisions in the White Paper as part of its expansion, we are playing catch up, given that many regional airports grew significantly over the two to three years before the White Paper.
	The master plan's purpose is to regularise growth and to identify, first, the nature of the expansion, and, secondly, how airports will work with other bodies and contribute to surface links. We cannot say to airports, Whatever growth there has been thus far, you can stop now until we work through this White Paper. I accept that the process contains a time lag, and equally accept that, as a result of traffic using rat runs through local villages, North Somerset council and others are under pressure to improve road access to the airport.
	To that end, I recently commissioned a study into the feasibility of a link road between the A370 and the A38. The objectives of the study were threefoldto improve access to the airport, to relieve congestion in south Bristol and to encourage regeneration in south Bristol. As the hon. Member for Woodspring made clear, to improve access to the airport without having strong cognisance of how that impacts on traffic patterns in the south Bristol area is in no one's interests and is not practical.

Jonathan Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: With the greatest respect, if the hon. Gentleman had had the courtesy to let me know that he wanted to intervene, it would have been helpful, but on this occasion, because I feel generous, I give way.

Jonathan Sayeed: I am very grateful to the Minister. I listened to the debate because I was the MP for Bristol, East before I became the MP for Mid-Bedfordshire. I know the area and recognise how pressurised local people have become because of the increase in traffic. Because the number of schemes is small, the Minister has few places to visit to see the effects of airport expansion. Will he get in the car and drive around all the villages and small towns affected, particularly around Bristol airport, to see what the increase in traffic means to the ordinary lives of ordinary people?

Tony McNulty: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been peeking in my diary, but I plan to visit Bristol shortlyfunnily enough, after 10 June. If it is possible to visit the airport to discuss its plans and to get out and about to see quite what prevails in those villages, I will be happy to do so. For my sins, during the nine or 10 months before the White Paper I managed to visit about 15 airports that are, perhaps, senior to Bristol, but Bristol airport is certainly on my radarno pun intended.
	I am grateful that the hon. Member for Woodspring accepts that no simple solution exists to improve access to Bristol airport without impinging on other factors that we all hold dear and that the resolution of the problem must form part of a wider solution. The A370 and A38 study suggests that a link would, as he suggested, enable traffic for the airport to leave the M5 at junction 18, Avonmouth, to avoid the existing congestion in south Bristol. Three options were considered, two of which run fairly close to the Bristol boundary, with the other running more or less parallel to the B3130 through Barrow Gurney.
	While the study showed a small saving in journey time for people travelling to the airport, none of the options addressed the other objectivesrelief of congestion in south Bristol or the issue of regeneration. Consequently, it was considered that an isolated link between the A370 and the A38 would not represent good value for money. It was decided that the options for improving access to the airport should be looked at againthe hon. Gentleman alluded to thatin a more holistic way as part of the greater Bristol strategic transportation study, which commenced in November 2003 and is due to report in early summer 2005.
	As the hon. Gentleman suggests, and is certainly aware, the airport faced some complex constraints. The aviation White Paper forecast suggests that by 2030 it could attract between 10 million and 12 million passengers per annum. While the existing terminal site should be able to cope with up to 8 million passengers per annum, provided that additional aircraft stands can be accommodated, beyond that, as he suggests, a second terminal south of the runway would be required, together with a runway extension to the east and extended parallel taxiway.
	In that context, the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the implications that such growth might have for residents in his constituency, although I understand that the number of people living under the 57 dBAA-weighted decibelsnoise contour in 1999 was about 1,000. We would expect only a very small increase in that number by 2015, even at the higher end of the growth forecasts, but I fully accept that noise contours and noise impact are but two of a whole array of impacts that the expansion could have.
	With a runway extension, and our highest levels of forecast throughput, estimates suggest that by 2030 there would be no more than about 3,500 people within the 57 dBA noise contour. Similarly, there are concerns that the runway extension needed to accommodate growth over 8 million passengers per annum would require some common land to be taken, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If that is the case, we would expect it to be replaced elsewhere. There is also likely to be some loss of green belt as a result of a runway extension and new terminal development. However, it is believed that that not would fundamentally affect the integrity of the green belt within the area and it is considered that it may, on balance, be justified by the importance of airport growth to the region's economy.
	If all that sounds like extremely qualified provision, that is because it is not for me to prejudge any application that is made or what is in the master plan. Nor is it for me to prejudice any subsequent planned application. That is broadly, in policy framework terms, how such an application would be dealt with in that context.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. First, he underestimates the strength of feeling against any runway extension or the reduction of the common land or green belt, which would be fought tooth and nail by my constituents and those who live in the vicinity, including me.
	Secondly, I know that we do not expect major announcements of Government policy in Adjournment debates, but I would be grateful if the Minister would give the House some guidance on this point. When councils are considering planning and the strategic plan, what advice would he, through his officials, give on the relative weight that ought to be placed on having necessary transport infrastructure before further expansion takes place? That, surely, is the nub of the debate.

Tony McNulty: To return to the hon. Gentleman's first point, while it is not for me to prejudge or speculate on what will be in any planned application for the airport, neither is it my job to prejudge what reaction there might be from local communities to such an application.
	The aviation White Paper makes it very clear that we would expect in all plans for expansion concomitant and commensurate plans for necessary increases in surface access to the airport. As I have made very plain, Bristol is more unusual than others in the lack of obvious substantive public transport means to improve that surface access, given its location in respect of rail and other links. I would anticipate the master plan and any subsequent application spending a good deal of time on how such service access links would be improved as part of the growth and expansion.
	That is made very clear in the White Paper. It may be, although it is not for me to judge, that the Greater Bristol strategic transport study moves matters in that directionwhether to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction or not I simply do not know, as neither of us know entirely what is in it. It is for the local council and the region, through its regional spatial strategy and regional transport strategywhich will be subsumed into the regional spatial strategy, if that does not sound like gobbledegookto understand how all those elements fit together, not simply in relation to the airport but in terms of the broader notion of housing, employment and other strategies in the former Avon area. It is envisaged that all the scenarios developed by that study will include the predicted growth of Bristol International airport and the infrastructure required to support such a development in a sustainable and holistic manner, which also needs to be fully assessed.
	I am happy that, at least for now, the airport operators and all the local councils are fully engaged in the study process, and will have due regard to the implications of the scenarios being tested, including the likely traffic implications for the road network in the vicinity of the airport. Certainly, I, and, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman will await with interest the report of such a study. I can understand not only the frustration about there being study upon study, but that, as the airport grows and develops, it requires, and his constituents require, the necessary road infrastructure and service access at least to develop alongside, if not ideally ahead of, such substantial growth and development. The airport's role is important in terms of the local economy, and I am glad that he recognises that. Let us work together to ensure that the infrastructure is what the airport and his constituents deserve.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NOTHING